Medical fact. Life begins at conception.

[buttercup]

Life obviously must begin at some point

No, it musn't. Nothing stops life from being a continuum.

That's where your logic faceplants. Everything that follows from that error is false. The fundamental pro-life claim is absurd, hence the pro-life philosophy is absurd.

This is where pro-lifers scream "LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION BECAUSE I SAY SO!" at higher volume, ignoring the way reality contradicts them. You can scream "BLACK IS WHITE BECAUSE I SAY SO!" all you want, bbut it still won't be true. The same goes with goes pro-life nonsense.

What you're saying is absurd. OBVIOUSLY the life of every human being had a starting point. That is not even debatable, it is a scientific fact, which only ignorant people deny.

I think maybe the problem here is that some of you are conflating the word "life" in the sense of mere parts of a human being (like skin cells, sperm or egg, whatever) with the word "life" in the sense of an actual human individual. What many proaborts get wrong is that an egg by itself or a sperm by itself is not a human life, by themselves those are dead-ends, it is only when the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception that a radical change takes place, the beginning of a brand new, unique human being. Again, that is basic biology, and if you don't believe it, we can show you.

After THAT, then yes, human life is a continuum. In other words, contrary to what some proaborts think, life does not begin at birth, it begins at conception, and then during every stage (zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, etc) you have a human being. During ALL those stages. It's a human being throughout that continuum, just in different stages of life.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Obstetricians are trained and taught that when they're treating a pregnant woman that they're treating two patients. Two Individuals.

I think this solves a lot of confusion.

 

[mamooth]

What you're saying is absurd. OBVIOUSLY the life of every human being had a starting point.

"BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

That is not even debatable, it is a scientific fact, which only ignorant people deny.

I'm not the one claiming sperm and eggs aren't alive. It's hard to get more ignorant than that.

I think maybe the problem here is that some of you are conflating the word "life" in the sense of mere parts of a human being (like skin cells, sperm or egg, whatever) with the word "life" in the sense of an actual human individual.

I'm not dishonestly conflating it. Pro-lifers are. That's the point. The pro-life philosophy depends on that fundamental dishonesty.

If you disagree, then tell all pro-lifers to stop saying "Life begins at conception". If you won't, you're willing participant in the scam.

What many proaborts get wrong is that an egg by itself or a sperm by itself is not a human life, by themselves those are dead-ends, it is only when the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception that a radical change takes place, the beginning of a brand new, unique human being. Again, that is basic biology, and if you don't believe it, we can show you.

"BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

After all that, sperm and egg are still alive, so pro-life claims that "life begins at conception" are still nonsense. I say you're bigoted against helpless haploid humans. Because I say so. And my argument is just as valid as yours.

After THAT, then yes, human life is a continuum. In other words, contrary to what some proaborts think, life does not begin at birth, it begins at conception, and then during every stage (zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, etc) you have a human being. During ALL those stages. It's a human being throughout that continuum, just in different stages of life.

"BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

I say otherwise, and my arguments make more sense than yours. Specks aren't people. It's that simple.

Plus, my arguments are backed up by all of humanity over all of human history. Pro-life claims about life beginning at conception are very recent historical revisionism. If you want to overturn the precedence of the whole human race, you need more than "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

 

[Natural Citizen]

What you're saying is absurd. OBVIOUSLY the life of every human being had a starting point. That is not even debatable, it is a scientific fact, which only ignorant people deny.

I think maybe the problem here is that some of you are conflating the word "life" in the sense of mere parts of a human being (like skin cells, sperm or egg, whatever) with the word "life" in the sense of an actual human individual. What many pro-aborts get wrong is that an egg by itself or a sperm by itself is not a human life, by themselves those are dead-ends, it is only when the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception that a radical change takes place, the beginning of a brand new, unique human being. Again, that is basic biology, and if you don't believe it, we can show you.

After THAT, then yes, human life is a continuum. In other words, contrary to what some pro-aborts think, life does not begin at birth, it begins at conception, and then during every stage (zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, etc) you have a human being. During ALL those stages. It's a human being throughout that continuum, just in different stages of life.

What's gawn awn, Buttercup. The topic is discussed in a very good book, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom, by Obstetrician and Gynecologist Dr. Ron Paul, #1New York Times Bestselling author of The Revolution and End The Fed.

I'll snip a whole page here, reprinted with permission from the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, c2017

Note particularly Dr. Paul's commentary with regard to the institutionalized erosion of the Hippocratic oath.


On one occasion in the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, while visiting a surgical suite as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately two pounds. It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice. Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue.

That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant born was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted. But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child’s life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. These were human lives. There was no consistent moral basis to the value oflife under these circumstances.

Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I’ve never understood how an act of violence, killing a humanbeing, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right. To speak only of the mother’s cost in carrying a baby to term ignoresall thought of any legal rights of the unborn. I believe that the moral consequence of cavalierly accepting abortion diminishes the value of all life.

It is now widely accepted that there’s a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion,murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. There are only four crimes listed in the Constitution: counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery.Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states. It’s a giant leap for the federal courts to declare abortion a constitutional right and overruleall state laws regulating the procedure. If anything, the federal government has a responsibility to protect life—not grant permission to destroy it. If a state were to legalize infanticide, it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government, which is required by the Constitution.

If we, for the sake of discussion, ignore the legal arguments for or against abortion and have no laws prohibiting it, serious social ramification swould remain. There are still profound moral issues, issues of consent, and fundamental questions about the origin of life and the rights of individuals. There are two arguments that clash. Some argue that any abortion after conception should be illegal. Others argue that the mother hasa right to her body and no one should interfere with her decision. It’s amazing to me that many people I have spoken to in the pro-choice grouprarely care about choice in other circumstances. Almost all regulations by the federal government to protect us from ourselves (laws againstsmoking, bans on narcotics, and mandatory seat belts, for example) are readily supported by the left/liberals who demand “choice.” Of course, tothe pro-choice group, the precious choice we debate is limited to the mother and not to the unborn.

The fact is that the fetus has legal rights—inheritance, a right not to be injured or aborted by unwise medical treatment, violence, or accidents.Ignoring these rights is arbitrary and places relative rights on a small, living human being. The only issue that should be debated is the moral one:whether or not a fetus has any right to life. Scientifically, there’s no debate over whether the fetus is alive and human—if not killed, it matures into an adult human being. It is that simple. So the time line of when we consider a fetus “human” is arbitrary after conception, in my mind.

It’s interesting to hear the strongest supporters of abortion squirm when asked if they support the mother’s right to an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy. They inevitably don’t support such an act, but every argument that is made for abortion in the first month is applicable to late pregnancy as well. It’s still the mother’s body. It’s still her choice. Due to changed circumstances, she may well have strong compelling social reasons to prevent a live birth and assume its obligations, even in the third trimester. This is a dilemma for the proponents of choice and they should be challenged as to where the line should be drawn.

Another aspect of this debate needs to be resolved: If an abortion doctor performs a third-trimester abortion for whatever reason, a handsome fee is paid and it’s perfectly legal in some states. If a frightened teenager, possibly not even knowing she was pregnant, delivers a baby and she kills it, the police are out en masse to charge her with a homicide. What really is so different between the fetus one minute before birth and anewborn one minute after birth? Biologically and morally, nothing. We must also answer the grim question of what should be done with a newborn that inadvertently survives an abortion. It happens more than you might think. Doctors have been accused of murder since the baby died after delivery, but that hardly seems just. The real question is, how can a human infant have such relative value attached to it?

In the age of abortion, with nearly a million being performed each year in the United States, society sends a signal that we place a lower value on the small and the weak. Most young people choose abortions for economic reasons; they believe that they cannot afford to bear the child and would rather wait.1 Why is it that moral considerations do not trump such fears? Why do these women not consider other options, such as adoption,more seriously? They’ve been taught by society that an unwanted fetus-baby has no right to life and therefore has no real value. And why do so many young women put themselves at risk for having to make such choices in the first place? Availability of abortion, most likely, changes behavior and actually increases unwanted pregnancies.

The difference or lack thereof between a baby one minute after birth and one minute before needs to be quantified. The Congress or the courts are incapable of doing this. This is a profound issue to be determined by society itself based on the moral value it espouses.

Abortion is rarely a long-term answer. A woman who has had one abortion is more likely to have another. It’s an easier solution than a change in long-developed personal behavior. My argument is that the abortion problem is more of a social and moral issue than it is a legal one. In the1960s, when I was in my OB/GYN residency training, abortions were being done in defiance of the law. Society had changed and the majority agreed the laws should be changed as well. The Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe v. Wade caught up with the changes in moral standards.

So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill,which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice.

As a bankrupt government takes over more of our health care, rationing of care by government mandates is unavoidable. Picking and choosing who should live and who should die may sound morally repugnant, but this is where we end up in a world with scarce means and politically driven decisions about how those means are going to be employed. The federal government will remain very much involved in the abortion business either directly or indirectly by financing it.

One thing I believe for certain is that the federal government should never tax pro-life citizens to pay for abortions. The constant effort by the pro-choice crowd to fund abortion must rank among the stupidest policies ever, even from their viewpoint. All they accomplish is to give valiant motivation for all pro-life forces as well as the anti-tax supporters of abortion to fight against them.

A society that readily condones abortion invites attacks on personal liberty. If all life is not precious, how can all liberty be held up as important?It seems that if some life can be thrown away, our right to personally choose what is best for us is more difficult to defend. I’ve become convinced that resolving the abortion issue is required for a healthy defense of a free society.

The availability and frequent use of abortion has caused many young people to change their behavior. Its legalization and general acceptance has not had a favorable influence on society. Instead, it has resulted in a diminished respect for both life and liberty.

Strangely, given that my moral views are akin to theirs, various national pro-life groups have been hostile to my position on this issue. But I also believe in the Constitution, and therefore, I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all fifty states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion. Legislation of this sort would probably allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters.It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic. Demanding a national and only a national solution, as some do, gives credence to the very process that made abortions so prevalent. Ending nationally legalized abortions by federal court order is neither a practical answer to the problem nor a constitutionally sound argument.

Removing jurisdiction from the federal courts can be done with a majority vote in the Congress and the signature of the President. This is much simpler than waiting for the Supreme Court to repeal Roe v. Wade or for a constitutional amendment. My guess is that the scurrilous attacks by these groups are intended more to discredit my entire defense of liberty and the Constitution than they are to deal with the issue of abortion. These same groups have very little interest in being pro-life when it comes to fighting illegal, undeclared wars in the Middle East or preventive(aggressive) wars for religious reasons. An interesting paradox!

My position does not oppose looking for certain judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court, or even having a constitutional definition of life.Removing the jurisdiction from the federal courts would result in fewer abortions much sooner, but it wouldn’t prevent a national effort to change the Supreme Court or the Constitution by amendment. It makes one wonder why the resistance to a practical and constitutional approach to this problem is so strong.

Just about everyone knows that the Hippocratic oath includes the pledge not to do abortions. In the 1960s, most medical schools, rather than face the issue, just dropped the tradition of medical-school graduating seniors repeating the oath. My class of 1961 ignored the oath at graduation.

Just think, the oath survived for so many years and then ended right before the drug and Vietnam War culture, when it was most desperately needed.

By 1988, when my son Dr. Rand Paul graduated, the oath was made voluntary in a special baccalaureate ceremony. But strangely, the oath was edited to exclude the provision pledging not to do an abortion. Today, sadly, medical school applicants in some schools are screened and can be rejected or at least intimidated on this issue.

As a pro-life libertarian physician, my strong advice, regardless of what is legal, is for medical personnel to just say no to participation in any procedure or process that is pro-death or diminishes respect for life in any way. Let the lawyers and the politicians and mercenary, unethical doctors deal with implementing laws regulating death.

Deregulating the adoption market would also make a margin of difference in reducing abortion. This would make it easier for nonprofit groups to arrange for adoptive parents and for them to compensate the mother enough to absorb the expenses and opportunity costs associated with carrying the child to term. Small changes could make a large difference here.

Finally, here is my program for pro-life MDs and medical personnel:

• Do not perform abortions for convenience or social reasons.
• Do not be the agent of active euthanasia.
• Do not participate in any manner—directly or indirectly—in torture.
• Do not participate in human experimentation. I’m not referring to testing new drugs with the patient’s consent. I’m speaking of our long history of military participation in human experimentation. The Tuskegee experiment, in which black soldiers who had syphilis were deliberately mistreated, is one example.

• Do not be involved with the state in executing criminals or in any way approve the carrying out of the death penalty.
• Do not participate in government-run programs where medical care is rationed for economic or social reasons that place relative value on life.Do not give political or philosophical support for wars of aggression, referred to as preventive wars.

 

[buttercup]

What you're saying is absurd. OBVIOUSLY the life of every human being had a starting point.

"BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

That is not even debatable, it is a scientific fact, which only ignorant people deny.

I'm not the one claiming sperm and eggs aren't alive. It's hard to get more ignorant than that.

I think maybe the problem here is that some of you are conflating the word "life" in the sense of mere parts of a human being (like skin cells, sperm or egg, whatever) with the word "life" in the sense of an actual human individual.

I'm not dishonestly conflating it. Pro-lifers are. That's the point. The pro-life philosophy depends on that fundamental dishonesty.

If you disagree, then tell all pro-lifers to stop saying "Life begins at conception". If you won't, you're willing participant in the scam.

What many proaborts get wrong is that an egg by itself or a sperm by itself is not a human life, by themselves those are dead-ends, it is only when the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception that a radical change takes place, the beginning of a brand new, unique human being. Again, that is basic biology, and if you don't believe it, we can show you.

"BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

After all that, sperm and egg are still alive, so pro-life claims that "life begins at conception" are still nonsense. I say you're bigoted against helpless haploid humans. Because I say so. And my argument is just as valid as yours.

After THAT, then yes, human life is a continuum. In other words, contrary to what some proaborts think, life does not begin at birth, it begins at conception, and then during every stage (zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, etc) you have a human being. During ALL those stages. It's a human being throughout that continuum, just in different stages of life.

"BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

I say otherwise, and my arguments make more sense than yours. Specks aren't people. It's that simple.

Plus, my arguments are backed up by all of humanity over all of human history. Pro-life claims about life beginning at conception are very recent historical revisionism. If you want to overturn the precedence of the whole human race, you need more than "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

I didn't see an argument anywhere, was that supposed to refute what was said? I didn't see anything of substance, just projecting, because you are actually putting forth YOUR opinion as fact, while accusing others of doing that, when you are undeniably and demonstrably wrong about basic biology.

It's fine if you don't believe me, but feel free to argue with basic biology, you will only look even more ignorant and foolish than you already do:

“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

__


“….it is scientifically correct to say that human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School: Quoted by Public Affairs Council

__

National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/...

The government’s own definition attests to the fact that life begins at fertilization. According to the National Institutes of Health, “fertilization” is the process of union of two gametes (i.e., ovum and sperm) “whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.”

Steven Ertelt “Undisputed Scientific Fact: Human Life Begins at Conception, or Fertilization” LifeNews.com 11/18/13

__

“It is the penetration of the ovum by a sperm and the resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the initiation of the life of a new individual.”

Clark Edward and Corliss Patten’s Human Embryology, McGraw – Hill Inc., 30

__


“Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., P.h.D. was first scientist to succeed at in vitro fertilization:

“The zygote is human life….there is one fact that no one can deny; Human beings begin at conception.”


__


Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”


__


“The first cell of a new and unique human life begins existence at the moment of conception (fertilization) when one living sperm from the father joins with one living ovum from the mother. It is in this manner that human life passes from one generation to another. Given the appropriate environment and genetic composition, the single cell subsequently gives rise to trillions of specialized and integrated cells that compose the structures and functions of each individual human body. Every human being alive today and, as far as is known scientifically, every human being that ever existed, began his or her unique existence in this manner, i.e., as one cell. If this first cell or any subsequent configuration of cells perishes, the individual dies, ceasing to exist in matter as a living being. There are no known exceptions to this rule in the field of human biology.”


James Bopp, ed., Human Life and Health Care Ethics, vol. 2 (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1985)

__


Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body (New York: Rand McNally, 1980) 139, 144

“In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.”

Quoted in Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000)

__

“The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual. The penetration of the ovum by the spermatozoon, and the coming together and pooling of their respective nuclei, constitutes the process of fertilization.”

Leslie Brainerd Arey, “Developmental Anatomy” seventh edition space (Philadelphia: Saunders, 1974), 55

__

Thibodeau, G.A., and Anthony, C.P., Structure and Function of the Body, 8th edition, St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishers, St. Louis, 1988. pages 409-419

“The science of the development of the individual before birth is called embryology. It is the story of miracles, describing the means by which a single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being. Genetically the zygote is complete. It represents a new single celled individual.”

__


Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3

“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”

__


Lennart Nilsson A Child is Born: Completely Revised Edition (Dell Publishing Co.: New York) 1986

“but the whole story does not begin with delivery. The baby has existed for months before – at first signaling its presence only with small outer signs, later on as a somewhat foreign little being which has been growing and gradually affecting the lives of those close by…”

__


Kaluger, G., and Kaluger, M., Human Development: The Span of Life, page 28-29, The C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, 1974

“In that fraction of a second when the chromosomes form pairs, [at conception] the sex of the new child will be determined, hereditary characteristics received from each parent will be set, and a new life will have begun.”

__

Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3

“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”

__

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:

“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”[​

 

[mamooth]

Deregulating the adoption market would also make a margin of difference in reducing abortion.

Oh, he's a wannabee baby seller. A flesh-peddler. He wants to make some money slaving. You know, buying and selling human beings for money.

Money is the motivating factor behind many pro-lifers. There's big bucks in the human-selling business.

Needless to say, you don't see us ethical people pushing for the "right" to buy and sell human beings

 

[Natural Citizen]

Oh, he's a wannabee baby seller. A flesh-peddler. He wants to make some money slaving. You know, buying and selling human beings for money.

Money is the motivating factor behind many pro-lifers. There's big bucks in the human-selling business.

Needless to say, you don't see us ethical people pushing for the "right" to buy and sell human beings

He's an Obstetrician and a Gynecologist who has delivered thousands of babies.

 

[buttercup]

What you're saying is absurd. OBVIOUSLY the life of every human being had a starting point. That is not even debatable, it is a scientific fact, which only ignorant people deny.

I think maybe the problem here is that some of you are conflating the word "life" in the sense of mere parts of a human being (like skin cells, sperm or egg, whatever) with the word "life" in the sense of an actual human individual. What many pro-aborts get wrong is that an egg by itself or a sperm by itself is not a human life, by themselves those are dead-ends, it is only when the sperm and the egg fuse together at conception that a radical change takes place, the beginning of a brand new, unique human being. Again, that is basic biology, and if you don't believe it, we can show you.

After THAT, then yes, human life is a continuum. In other words, contrary to what some pro-aborts think, life does not begin at birth, it begins at conception, and then during every stage (zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, etc) you have a human being. During ALL those stages. It's a human being throughout that continuum, just in different stages of life.

What's gawn awn, Buttercup. The topic is discussed in a very good book, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom, by Obstetrician and Gynocologist Dr. Ron Paul, #1New York Times Bestselling author of The Revolution and End The Fed.

I'll snip a whole page here, reprinted with permission from the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, c2017

Note particularly Dr. Paul's commentary with regard to the institutionalized erosion of the Hippocratic oath.


On one occasion in the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, while visiting a surgical suite as an OB/GYN resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately two pounds. It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the medical personnel pretended not to notice. Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more seriously about this important issue.

That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant born was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted. But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child’s life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. These were human lives. There was no consistent moral basis to the value oflife under these circumstances.

Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I’ve never understood how an act of violence, killing a humanbeing, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right. To speak only of the mother’s cost in carrying a baby to term ignoresall thought of any legal rights of the unborn. I believe that the moral consequence of cavalierly accepting abortion diminishes the value of all life.

It is now widely accepted that there’s a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion,murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. There are only four crimes listed in the Constitution: counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery.Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states. It’s a giant leap for the federal courts to declare abortion a constitutional right and overruleall state laws regulating the procedure. If anything, the federal government has a responsibility to protect life—not grant permission to destroy it. If a state were to legalize infanticide, it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government, which is required by the Constitution.

If we, for the sake of discussion, ignore the legal arguments for or against abortion and have no laws prohibiting it, serious social ramification swould remain. There are still profound moral issues, issues of consent, and fundamental questions about the origin of life and the rights of individuals. There are two arguments that clash. Some argue that any abortion after conception should be illegal. Others argue that the mother hasa right to her body and no one should interfere with her decision. It’s amazing to me that many people I have spoken to in the pro-choice grouprarely care about choice in other circumstances. Almost all regulations by the federal government to protect us from ourselves (laws againstsmoking, bans on narcotics, and mandatory seat belts, for example) are readily supported by the left/liberals who demand “choice.” Of course, tothe pro-choice group, the precious choice we debate is limited to the mother and not to the unborn.

The fact is that the fetus has legal rights—inheritance, a right not to be injured or aborted by unwise medical treatment, violence, or accidents.Ignoring these rights is arbitrary and places relative rights on a small, living human being. The only issue that should be debated is the moral one:whether or not a fetus has any right to life. Scientifically, there’s no debate over whether the fetus is alive and human—if not killed, it matures into an adult human being. It is that simple. So the time line of when we consider a fetus “human” is arbitrary after conception, in my mind.

It’s interesting to hear the strongest supporters of abortion squirm when asked if they support the mother’s right to an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy. They inevitably don’t support such an act, but every argument that is made for abortion in the first month is applicable to late pregnancy as well. It’s still the mother’s body. It’s still her choice. Due to changed circumstances, she may well have strong compelling social reasons to prevent a live birth and assume its obligations, even in the third trimester. This is a dilemma for the proponents of choice and they should be challenged as to where the line should be drawn.

Another aspect of this debate needs to be resolved: If an abortion doctor performs a third-trimester abortion for whatever reason, a handsome fee is paid and it’s perfectly legal in some states. If a frightened teenager, possibly not even knowing she was pregnant, delivers a baby and she kills it, the police are out en masse to charge her with a homicide. What really is so different between the fetus one minute before birth and anewborn one minute after birth? Biologically and morally, nothing. We must also answer the grim question of what should be done with a newborn that inadvertently survives an abortion. It happens more than you might think. Doctors have been accused of murder since the baby died after delivery, but that hardly seems just. The real question is, how can a human infant have such relative value attached to it?

In the age of abortion, with nearly a million being performed each year in the United States, society sends a signal that we place a lower value on the small and the weak. Most young people choose abortions for economic reasons; they believe that they cannot afford to bear the child and would rather wait.1 Why is it that moral considerations do not trump such fears? Why do these women not consider other options, such as adoption,more seriously? They’ve been taught by society that an unwanted fetus-baby has no right to life and therefore has no real value. And why do so many young women put themselves at risk for having to make such choices in the first place? Availability of abortion, most likely, changes behavior and actually increases unwanted pregnancies.

The difference or lack thereof between a baby one minute after birth and one minute before needs to be quantified. The Congress or the courts are incapable of doing this. This is a profound issue to be determined by society itself based on the moral value it espouses.

Abortion is rarely a long-term answer. A woman who has had one abortion is more likely to have another. It’s an easier solution than a change in long-developed personal behavior. My argument is that the abortion problem is more of a social and moral issue than it is a legal one. In the1960s, when I was in my OB/GYN residency training, abortions were being done in defiance of the law. Society had changed and the majority agreed the laws should be changed as well. The Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe v. Wade caught up with the changes in moral standards.

So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill,which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice.

As a bankrupt government takes over more of our health care, rationing of care by government mandates is unavoidable. Picking and choosing who should live and who should die may sound morally repugnant, but this is where we end up in a world with scarce means and politically driven decisions about how those means are going to be employed. The federal government will remain very much involved in the abortion business either directly or indirectly by financing it.

One thing I believe for certain is that the federal government should never tax pro-life citizens to pay for abortions. The constant effort by the pro-choice crowd to fund abortion must rank among the stupidest policies ever, even from their viewpoint. All they accomplish is to give valiant motivation for all pro-life forces as well as the anti-tax supporters of abortion to fight against them.

A society that readily condones abortion invites attacks on personal liberty. If all life is not precious, how can all liberty be held up as important?It seems that if some life can be thrown away, our right to personally choose what is best for us is more difficult to defend. I’ve become convinced that resolving the abortion issue is required for a healthy defense of a free society.

The availability and frequent use of abortion has caused many young people to change their behavior. Its legalization and general acceptance has not had a favorable influence on society. Instead, it has resulted in a diminished respect for both life and liberty.

Strangely, given that my moral views are akin to theirs, various national pro-life groups have been hostile to my position on this issue. But I also believe in the Constitution, and therefore, I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all fifty states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion. Legislation of this sort would probably allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters.It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic. Demanding a national and only a national solution, as some do, gives credence to the very process that made abortions so prevalent. Ending nationally legalized abortions by federal court order is neither a practical answer to the problem nor a constitutionally sound argument.

Removing jurisdiction from the federal courts can be done with a majority vote in the Congress and the signature of the President. This is much simpler than waiting for the Supreme Court to repeal Roe v. Wade or for a constitutional amendment. My guess is that the scurrilous attacks by these groups are intended more to discredit my entire defense of liberty and the Constitution than they are to deal with the issue of abortion. These same groups have very little interest in being pro-life when it comes to fighting illegal, undeclared wars in the Middle East or preventive(aggressive) wars for religious reasons. An interesting paradox!

My position does not oppose looking for certain judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court, or even having a constitutional definition of life.Removing the jurisdiction from the federal courts would result in fewer abortions much sooner, but it wouldn’t prevent a national effort to change the Supreme Court or the Constitution by amendment. It makes one wonder why the resistance to a practical and constitutional approach to this problem is so strong.

Just about everyone knows that the Hippocratic oath includes the pledge not to do abortions. In the 1960s, most medical schools, rather than face the issue, just dropped the tradition of medical-school graduating seniors repeating the oath. My class of 1961 ignored the oath at graduation.

Just think, the oath survived for so many years and then ended right before the drug and Vietnam War culture, when it was most desperately needed.

By 1988, when my son Dr. Rand Paul graduated, the oath was made voluntary in a special baccalaureate ceremony. But strangely, the oath was edited to exclude the provision pledging not to do an abortion. Today, sadly, medical school applicants in some schools are screened and can be rejected or at least intimidated on this issue.

As a pro-life libertarian physician, my strong advice, regardless of what is legal, is for medical personnel to just say no to participation in any procedure or process that is pro-death or diminishes respect for life in any way. Let the lawyers and the politicians and mercenary, unethical doctors deal with implementing laws regulating death.

Deregulating the adoption market would also make a margin of difference in reducing abortion. This would make it easier for nonprofit groups to arrange for adoptive parents and for them to compensate the mother enough to absorb the expenses and opportunity costs associated with carrying the child to term. Small changes could make a large difference here.

Finally, here is my program for pro-life MDs and medical personnel:

• Do not perform abortions for convenience or social reasons.
• Do not be the agent of active euthanasia.
• Do not participate in any manner—directly or indirectly—in torture.
• Do not participate in human experimentation. I’m not referring to testing new drugs with the patient’s consent. I’m speaking of our long history of military participation in human experimentation. The Tuskegee experiment, in which black soldiers who had syphilis were deliberately mistreated, is one example.

• Do not be involved with the state in executing criminals or in any way approve the carrying out of the death penalty.
• Do not participate in government-run programs where medical care is rationed for economic or social reasons that place relative value on life.Do not give political or philosophical support for wars of aggression, referred to as preventive wars.

He is such a wise man. It's a breath of fresh air to see a DOCTOR who understands the conflict of interest (for lack of a better word) that exists when a doctor who is supposed to "do no harm" and protect life, does the exact opposite through abortion. Thanks for posting that, the story about the baby who survived an abortion is horribly sad.

 

[Natural Citizen]

He is such a wise man. It's a breath of fresh air to see a DOCTOR who understands the conflict of interest (for lack of a better word) that exists when a doctor who is supposed to "do no harm" and protect life, does the exact opposite through abortion. Thanks for posting that, the story about the baby who survived an abortion is horribly sad.

Yeah. He sure is. An Obstetritian and a strict, knowledgeable Constitutionalist.

Remember when he mopped the floor with Rick Santorum on the abortion issue at the national debate?

 

[mamooth]

I didn't see an argument anywhere, was that supposed to refute what was said?

I refuted you by pointing out that all you had was your subjective opinion.

It's fine if you don't believe me, but feel free to argue with basic biology,

I'm not arguing with biology. I'm arguing with your bad subjective interpretation of it, and the bad subjective interpretation of your various sources.

Someone could claim "Biology says that only those with pale skin are human". Skin color is a fact of biology, but using it as a criteria for personhood would be entirely subjective. Your claims are entirely subjective in the same way. Objective criteria subjectively chosen make for a subjective result.

you will only look even more ignorant and foolish than you already do:

Biology is not kind to pro-life fantasies. If you knew more about biology, you'd know that. You don't know much about biology. That's easy to show.

First, you need to define your terms. Define what constitutes a human being.

If you use a term like "Human DNA", define precisely what that is. Don't use circular logic.

Do not define something by what it might become. After all, an unfertilized egg might become a human being. That's not debatable, as I can trace my lineage back to an unfertilized egg.

 

[mamooth]

He's an Obstetrician and a Gynecologist who has delivered thousands of babies.

So like I said, he's got a financial stake in it.

 

[buttercup]

I didn't see an argument anywhere, was that supposed to refute what was said?

I refuted you by pointing out that all you had was your subjective opinion.

It's fine if you don't believe me, but feel free to argue with basic biology,

I'm not arguing with biology. I'm arguing with your bad subjective interpretation of it, and the bad subjective interpretation of your various sources.

Someone could claim "Biology says that only those with pale skin are human". Skin color is a fact of biology, but using it as a criteria for personhood would be entirely subjective. Your claims are entirely subjective in the same way. Objective criteria subjectively chosen make for a subjective result.

you will only look even more ignorant and foolish than you already do:

Biology is not kind to pro-life fantasies. If you knew more about biology, you'd know that. You don't know much about biology. That's easy to show.

First, you need to define your terms. Define what constitutes a human being.

If you use a term like "Human DNA", define precisely what that is. Don't use circular logic.

Do not define something by what it might become. After all, an unfertilized egg might become a human being. That's not debatable, as I can trace my lineage back to an unfertilized egg.

You can't be that thick. Here, I'm not even going to try to get through to you, just read this. It explains it all. Don't do a "tl;dr" dismissal - just read it, the whole thing: Libertarians for Life - Abortion and the Question of the Person

 

[Hollie]

Most folks do not support State womb control before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

People can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of the State to impose their personal (usually religious) coercion upon others is antithetical to what the majority of Americans want.

The extremists’ view and their desire to impose it upon others via state coersion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fœtus achieves a stage of development where it is sentient and viable, it is recognized as a person and entitled to legal protection. Before that stage, a person does not yet exist. and the State must respect the prerogatives of the individual upon whom the developing entity is dependent, hence, Roe vs. Wade

Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest to just those. It merely presents a set of limitations relevant to the statute at hand- strict prohibition of abortion under any circumstances. It is providing one argument why that one law was unconstitutional.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother’s health moot, if the state chooses to peruse it.

 

[mamooth]

You can't be that thick.

That's the normal progression with pro-lifers who attempt to debate me. They all eventually reach the "declare victory and retreat" stage, so don't feel bad. Nobody expected better of you.

Let's get back to what you're running from now. You'll no doubt run from it again, as you obviously don't have the guts to debate me, but at last I'll have fun watching you run again.

Your beliefs are entirely subjective, so subjective that you can't even define your terms. You ran when I asked. Thus, I'll ask again.

Define exactly what constitutes a human being.

If you use a term like "Human DNA", define precisely what that is. Don't use circular logic.

Do not define something by what it might become. After all, an unfertilized egg might become a human being. That's not debatable, as I can trace my lineage back to an unfertilized egg.

Here, I'm not even going to try to get through to you, just read this. It explains it all. Don't do a "tl;dr" dismissal -

Says the one who just did a tl;dr dismissal. That's very cowardly and hypocritical of you.

You're now trying a Gish Gallup, dumping a load of subjective claims and shouting "refute it all point by point or I win!". If you could debate, you wouldn't have to do that. If you could debate, you could pick one point you thought was good, and present it in your own words. So why don't you do that?

I can refute your source simply, of course. It was a long "LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION BECAUSE I DEFINE IT SO!" piece. Objective standards subjectively chosen are subjective, so that author is making a purely subjective choice.

 

[buttercup]

Most folks do not support State womb control before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

People can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of the State to impose their personal (usually religious) coercion upon others is antithetical to what the majority of Americans want.

The extremists’ view and their desire to impose it upon others via state coersion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fœtus achieves a stage of development where it is sentient and viable, it is recognized as a person and entitled to legal protection. Before that stage, a person does not yet exist. and the State must respect the prerogatives of the individual upon whom the developing entity is dependent, hence, Roe vs. Wade

Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest to just those. It merely presents a set of limitations relevant to the statute at hand- strict prohibition of abortion under any circumstances. It is providing one argument why that one law was unconstitutional.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother’s health moot, if the state chooses to peruse it.

This is not a religious issue. It's a scientific fact that our lives begin at conception. That's why there are prolife atheists. Take a look at these groups, please:

Secular Pro-Life
Pro-Life Atheists

 

[buttercup]

You can't be that thick.

That's the normal progression with pro-lifers who attempt to debate me. They all eventually reach the "declare victory and retreat" stage, so don't feel bad. Nobody expected better of you.

Let's get back to what you're running from now. You'll no doubt run from it again, as you obviously don't have the guts to debate me, but at last I'll have fun watching you run again.

Your beliefs are entirely subjective, so subjective that you can't even define your terms. You ran when I asked. Thus, I'll ask again.

Define exactly what constitutes a human being.

If you use a term like "Human DNA", define precisely what that is. Don't use circular logic.

Do not define something by what it might become. After all, an unfertilized egg might become a human being. That's not debatable, as I can trace my lineage back to an unfertilized egg.

Here, I'm not even going to try to get through to you, just read this. It explains it all. Don't do a "tl;dr" dismissal -

Says the one who just did a tl;dr dismissal. That's very cowardly and hypocritical of you.

You're now trying a Gish Gallup, dumping a load of subjective claims and shouting "refute it all point by point or I win!". If you could debate, you wouldn't have to do that. If you could debate, you could pick one point you thought was good, and present it in your own words. So why don't you do that?

I can refute your source simply, of course. It was a long "LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION BECAUSE I DEFINE IT SO!" piece. Objective standards subjectively chosen are subjective, so that author is making a purely subjective choice.

Just read the link I gave you. It is explains it all thoroughly.

 

[Votto]

So I guess no one should have birth control and should be forced to have the baby.

Are you ready to make sure the baby doesn't starve? Of course aint because you're two faced idiot.

Preventing pregnancy is very easy...but I am afraid you might not be up to it.

But why, aborting a fetus is such good sport.

I just wish one day some doctor gets his ass whipped by the fetus to make it a little more fair.

 

[Votto]

Most folks do not support State womb control before that stage of gestation where personhood has developed, and few believe in the extremist "instant baby" notion where conception produces a person instantaneously.

People can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive power of the State to impose their personal (usually religious) coercion upon others is antithetical to what the majority of Americans want.

The extremists’ view and their desire to impose it upon others via state coersion is not the moral position of most Americans. If and when a fœtus achieves a stage of development where it is sentient and viable, it is recognized as a person and entitled to legal protection. Before that stage, a person does not yet exist. and the State must respect the prerogatives of the individual upon whom the developing entity is dependent, hence, Roe vs. Wade

Roe v. Wade has nothing to say about "life" nor the definitive timetable under which 'viability' occurs. It's arguing the circumstances under which the state can claim to possess a compelling interest which over-rides the privacy rights of the mother- nothing more. It neither requires them enforce or concede those interests, nor does it limit the circumstances in which a state may have an interest to just those. It merely presents a set of limitations relevant to the statute at hand- strict prohibition of abortion under any circumstances. It is providing one argument why that one law was unconstitutional.

The section regarding the second trimester dictates the point in which the state's interest in the mother's health can override her unrestrained privacy rights. Essentially, it represents the point at which the state can regulate certain aspects of abortion to protect the mother from herself.

The viability issue is completely separate- it represents the point at which the state's interest in protecting fetus's rights can be argued to override the mother's. Although the third trimester is generally held up as the benchmark for this, it was a compromise- the medical definition of viability clearly out-weighs any artificial timeline, and, given sufficiently advanced medical technology, can clearly kick in before the state's interest in the mother- i.e. if it became medically routine for a fetus to live outside the womb at the age of two weeks, that would be the new test for when the state could, but not necessarily must, impose its interests in protecting the fetus over the privacy rights of the mother. The viability issue would then render the interests in the mother’s health moot, if the state chooses to peruse it.

This is not a religious issue. It's a scientific fact that our lives begin at conception. That's why there are prolife atheists. Take a look at these groups, please:

Secular Pro-Life
Pro-Life Atheists

Not true, the fetus becomes human once the infant passes out of the birth canal, but ONLY until the Birth Fairy waves her magic wand over it to make it human.

 

[mamooth]

Just read the link I gave you.

I did. As I explained to you, it was an essay about the author's subjective choice about personhood, along with various red herrings. Again, you are invited to discuss something specific in it. Just present it in your own words, to show you understand it.

It is explains it all thoroughly.

Yet you can't explain it. That means you either didn't read it, or you don't understand it, or both. And yet you still expect me to believe it. Interesting.

Now, to demonstrate that your position isn't entirely arbitrary and subjective, define exactly what constitutes a human being.

If you use a term like "human DNA", define precisely what that is. Don't use circular logic.

Do not define something by what it might become. After all, an unfertilized egg might become a human being. That's not debatable, as I can trace my lineage back to an unfertilized egg.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

Life at conception may start at conception, but men never change. Until the men in America change (disrespectful of women's equality) the face of abortion won't change.