RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Anti-Abortion Activists Push New, More Radical Egg-As-Person Measures

Wendy Norris's picture

Wendy Norris is a freelance writer from Denver, Colorado. Her work can also be read at the public policy blog, Unbossed.com.  She will be covering the "egg-as-person" movement for RH Reality Check in the coming months.  

Other posts on on this issue today include a piece by Lynn Paltrow, and this cartoon.  A list of past articles on this issue can be found at the end of this post.

DENVER - A resurgent movement to place "personhood" measures on state ballots across the nation to ban abortion and comprehensive reproductive care could have far more sweeping implications than the trial balloon Colorado voters soundly defeated last year.

Far from being dissuaded by the 3-to-1 loss from their 2008 campaign to confer zygotes with legal rights, abortion opponents are regrouping with a broader initiative that purports to address life span issues, from conception to death.

The proposed 2010 constitutional ballot language - "the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being" - was submitted Thursday for initial review by the Colorado Legislative Council.

The new tack avoids previous efforts to redefine person as "any human being from the moment of fertilization" - phrasing that rankled even its supporters as too polarizing.

Shaded beneath the state capitol's famed golden dome and cradling his 10-day-old son, Gualberto Garcia Jones, 31, said announcing the new campaign:

"And the important thing to keep in mind, if you honestly and unbiasedly read the language - this is about the full spectrum of human development. It includes the very early stages.

But it's also about children who are born with disabilities and are stripped of their personhood. It's about handicapped people who are stripped of their personhood. It's about the elderly that are dying and who lose their personhood when they go into some form of a vegetative state."

When asked how such a wide-ranging law could be implemented, Jones, a lawyer and former legislative analyst for the anti-abortion group, American Life League, said:

"We'll leave it to the courts to interpret the language of the proposed amendment ... We have faith that our legislators will be able to implement this in a consistent manner with respect for all human beings regardless of how they come about in their creation."

Last year's ballot opponents claimed that adding a religiously-inspired definition to the Colorado constitution would affect more than 20,000 references to the term "person" in local and state statutes.

 

A new, all-encompassing "personhood" strategy

This new hard-line rhetorical stance is a radically different approach than the 2008 campaign, headed by Peyton, Colo., resident Kristi Burton, a telegenic online law school student, who furiously back-peddled from controversial early campaign statements that Amendment 48 sought to outright ban abortion and contraception.

Now, all bets are off. The new campaign leadership assured supporters that Burton will advise the team but her "muddled" communication goals won't be repeated.

Jones, a conservative Catholic, said he welcomed a debate about a contraception ban as an effect of the personhood cause:

"What this amendment does is protect all human beings," he said. "Something that is erroneously referred to as contraception causes the early human to die because they cannot develop in the uterus. And, then yeah, this would prohibit it. We're more than happy to talk about that."

The conflation of contraception with abortifacients is a well-used tactic by those who oppose abortion under all circumstances.

Combining the orthodoxy of hard-line opposition to comprehensive reproductive care with controversial end-of-life issues is a new strategy in the "personhood" movement that could be designed to appeal to the fast-growing voting bloc of religious Hispanics, whom Jones, a native of Spain, expressed particular interest in reaching out to.

The new strategic approach also appears to stem from a chance encounter amidst the spectacle of one family's personal tragedy turned national political sideshow.

Jones met long-time Colorado Right to Life activist Leslie Hanks in March 2005 while protesting at the Florida hospice where Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman at the center of a fierce right-to-die court battle, re-ignited the social conservative movement.

Jones and Hanks struck up a friendship. Later, he moved to Denver after leaving ALL to work on a 2006 South Dakota abortion ban campaign and then a low-profile campaign job to help Burton pass Amendment 48. While Hanks had a prominent public role, opponents of the 2008 effort do not recall seeing Jones on the stump until now.

 

Absolutist anti-abortion groups join forces

The 2010 campaign will be backed by Personhood USA, a new national nonprofit organization formed from the ashes of Burton's Colorado for Equal Rights, whose supporters were linked to militant anti-abortion groups, like the Army of God.

The Denver-based Personhood USA is headed by former Wichita resident and ex-Operation Rescue "truth truck" driver Keith Mason, and Michigan anti-abortion activist Cal Zastrow. Veterans of the failed Colorado campaign, the two men most recently were involved in the unsuccessful 2008 South Dakota citizen-initiated abortion ban and failed legislative actions in Montana and North Dakota earlier this spring.

Now they have plans to deploy platoons of "personhood" activists in 17 states to effectively ban abortion, oral/device contraception, in vitro fertilization, and embryonic stem cell research should they prevail to win civil rights for fertilized eggs. And if Jones' press briefing comments are any indication, they may take on disability advocacy groups and the burgeoning end-of-life care movement, as well.

In addition to Colorado, a 2010 "personhood" initiative in Montana was launched July 1 under the same auspices of broader language though the speech-making to introduce the campaign did not use the same anti-contraception and life span rhetorical flourishes employed by Jones.

 

Schisms continue over religious support for "personhood" and litmus tests

Mason noted that the local campaign counts among its supporters Jones' former employer, the American Life League, and Hanks' group Colorado Right to Life, whose long-standing feud with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson for not being anti-abortion enough is the stuff of local legend. Jones will head the Colorado affiliate of Personhood USA.

Mason dismissed any lingering flack between Focus and American Right to Life Action, another backer of "personhood" strategies, whose members were arrested and jailed after failing to pay a trespassing fine following the group's Sept. 4 sit-in protest at the evangelical Christian ministry and publishing empire's Colorado Springs headquarters. He anticipates Focus will again be on board with the new campaign. "They're bigger than that," he said "They'll do the right thing."

But not everyone in the faith community is enthusiastic about the proposal and some will continue to oppose it.

The Colorado Catholic Conference refused to endorse the 2008 measure over concerns about "the timing and content." A spokeswoman for the state's three Catholic bishops, well-known for their conservative social stances and willingness to insert themselves into political controversy, told the Denver Post that Amendment 48 backers "seriously misrepresented" the church, contradicting campaign claims that the bishops officially supported the cause.

Jeremy Shaver, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado which participated in the "No on 48" campaign unequivocally stated his group's opposition to the renewed "personhood" effort:

"My understanding of what they're trying to do is insert a particular religious definition of life in the state constitution," said Shaver. "Many people of faith don't believe state law should be based on religious doctrine or religious belief. We need to base our state law on what's in the interest of the common good.

"We believe it's a violation of religious freedom for all Coloradans and it's a danger to do so."

Shaver said he is especially troubled by the new life span argument:

"End of life decisions are also among the most personal decisions that we will make. Those decisions need to be made personally by individuals and their families and cannot and should not be made for us by politicians who seek to impose a religious agenda."

Unflagged, the "personhood" proponents soldier on while its advocates continue to grapple with the practicalities of the cause.

In a telling 2008 Q&A exchange, on the conservative religious television network EWTN Kids Web page, the American Life League's Judie Brown admits the legal murkiness of "personhood" to a reader questioning whether to impose capital felony sentences on abortion providers and women patients or merely misdemeanor penalties:

Once personhood is restored to all human beings prior to birth, we will have to wade through the minefield of criminal penalties and how they should be applied ... Gualberto Garcia Jones points out, "Criminal law is almost always about knowledge."


. . . . .
228 comments
Please login or register to post comments...

Who or what is funding Personhood USA and Operation Rescue?

Submitted by Anonymous on July 6, 2009 - 11:32pm.

Stay tuned. That's the next installment in my on-going series of reports on the statehood "personhood" initiatives.

Submitted by Wendy Norris, RH Reality Check on July 7, 2009 - 12:18am.

Eggs for brains.

Submitted by Hernonymous on July 7, 2009 - 6:17pm.

Operation Rescue gets a lot of its funding from Jeff White, the guy who used to be Troy's boss. He has to keep his funds private so he doesn't get anything taken away in lawsuits. But the guy has millions in real estate, his daughter is the one who bought the former abortion clinic Troy's business currently resides in.

Submitted by Maggotpunk on July 7, 2009 - 6:36pm.

I'll check it out.

 

Anybody else have "money trail" leads?

Submitted by Wendy Norris, RH Reality Check on July 8, 2009 - 4:57pm.

Apparently God?

Submitted by Anonymous on July 8, 2009 - 10:49am.

Ask any embryologist. Read an embryology textbook. They all say the same thing - human life begins at conception.

Of course, if you want to deny it, you'll have to go ask people who are NOT embryologists.

So, unless embryology has suddenly become a religion, it's really hard to see how this is an attempt to shove religion down anyone's throat.

Barack Hussein Obama keeps insisting that public policy should be based on science. Let's try it for once.

Submitted by SteveK on July 6, 2009 - 11:42pm.
Embryology and biology and medical textbooks do not address the issue of "when life begins," in the way you are defining it, and as others here have pointed out, they also do not recognize pregnancy itself til after implantation. Pregnancy after implantation is a definition universally shared by international medical bodies. Jodi Jacobson
Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Senior Political Editor on July 7, 2009 - 10:34am.

The issue, more succinctly, is 'when does a human being come into existance' and why one set of human beings enjoy rights while another set does not. This is not an issue for religious debate, as much as those who are pro-choice want to make it one. The issue is a matter of science and civil rights. Science knows clearly and unequivocally when human beings come into existance. And all human beings should be afforded equal protection under the law. That this should even be an issue still amazes me. The only people who would oppose granting civil rights to all human beings are those who have something to gain by seeing one set of human beings destroyed, whether they be in the womb or infirm.

Submitted by Ken Wilson on July 7, 2009 - 12:13pm.

So what is your plan, Ken? Please explain how you would go about extending equal protection under the law to blastocysts without simultaneously stripping women of those same protections. Inquiring minds want to know.

Submitted by ahunt on July 7, 2009 - 3:39pm.

But how would one convey rights to a being that's inside another person? And would the rights of the developing embryo trumps that of the full grown adult carrying it?

Submitted by Anonymous on July 7, 2009 - 6:01pm.

Bingo! Let's worry about the people we already have here, before we have to start worrying about potential members of our species. I for one believe that you aren't a human until you laugh.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 10, 2009 - 10:39am.

"...you aren't a human until you laugh."

I truly, truly hope you are being sarcastic. If not, this is the most disgusting thing I've ever read. I've always been pro-choice until recently, converted by science, common sense. I'm an atheist, by the way, but truly can't believe there are those of you out there that don't believe something with a beating heart can't be conveyed human status. Disgusting.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 30, 2009 - 7:26pm.

There is a historic basis for this claim- although it was not that that was when one is human, it was when one has a soul. Also, the idea goes back to the same time period when scientists though that the basic elements were earth, fire, water and air. If you've become an atheist pro-lifer, there are others. If you want, you can send an email to me at MessagesForLarry (at) gmail (dot) com, and I can tell you about a group which is organizing for just such people- or you can look for Society of Pro Life Agnostics and Secular Humaists on facebook.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 17, 2009 - 9:19am.

This argument has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with law and morality. You seem to be saying that fetus or zygote is a person whether or not it has developed brain function, is viable outside the womb, or possesses any cognizance of its environment. They're not actual persons, they're potential persons. The sentimental argument you make clouds the issue.

Submitted by Tara Madison Avery on July 7, 2009 - 7:42pm.

No Mr. Wilson, you are mistaken. "Science" does NOT know "clearly and unequivocally when human beings come into existance (sic)." Not even close. Real science is completely silent on this question. And modern-day radical anti-abortionists have forgotten and/or discarded the many centuries of philosophical and theological debate on this topic.

AFAIK, historical consensus is that the soul enters the body around "the quickening" - which is debated to be between the second trimester and when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb. Prior generations have considered this point to be settled "fact." Why has this theological certainty been discarded in our present age?

Because it has not been - is not - and never will be - about "personhood." I believe that, for the fanatic equivalent of the Taliban in America, it is about patriarchal retribution for "sin." But these fanatics are - and always will be - in the minority. Shame on them for trying to force their religious beliefs on the majority, a majority who find this absolutism abhorrent.

I believe that, for the majority of Americans, the abortion debate hinges on one question: at what point in the development of the fetus it is in the best interest of society to require the State to reach into the womb and force women to bear children.

Men and especially women of goodwill may disagree as to when that point is. I expect in my or my children's lifetime, the broad privacy guarantees expressed in Roe v. Wade will be more restrictively circumscribed, but never to the extent that anti-abortion fanatics pushing "personhood" for embryos are agitating for.

It is incredibly and hypocritical for some political activists in our society - whose pose is otherwise to support individual rights and property rights, and to shrink the power of "Government" - to require the State to deprive individuals the right to determine how their bodies are used. This hypocrisy is ultimately fatal to their argument.

IMO, this hypocritical stance is traitorous to the ideals of our Founding Fathers, and it is well past time for the majority of the electorate, the media, and politicians of all stripes to stand up to this treasonous terrorism, label it as such, and deprive it of any claim to legitimacy.

Submitted by J. Kelly on July 7, 2009 - 10:09pm.

Do you not see how ludicrous this is? How do you give freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from search and seizure and the right to bear arms to a collection of cells? Even if those cells contain the DNA to make them human, it does not make them human beings.

 

http://www.birthingjoy.net/blog

Submitted by clydweb, Network for Reproductive Options on July 8, 2009 - 5:05pm.

Tell ya what Ken: you can prevent as many abortions as you'd like. Just volunteer YOUR body to receive a transplant of an unwanted fetus. YOU be pregnant, YOU give birth (by C-section, obviously) and YOU put up with the resulting kid for the next 18 to 25 years.

Yes, it could be done. Read "The Fourth Procedure" by Stanley Pottinger.

Submitted by Epicurienne on July 12, 2009 - 1:14pm.

Jodi,

Sorry, but I have several embryology textbooks here that disagree:

"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]


"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]


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


"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


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


"[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]

Submitted by SteveK on July 7, 2009 - 2:20pm.

I never contested that human development *biologically begins* with fertilization. 

That is a vastly different issue than:

  • the beginning of pregnancy, which is at implantation.
  • when "life begins" as a person, which most credible scientific and medical texts do not even begin to address as this is a term and a concept that various from and within religious and spiritual traditions and among those who follow no such traditions but decide for or only guide themselves.

 

These laws in question seek to govern when "personhood" is conferred and when life begins as a person with legal rights.  These texts do not answer that question.

 

As I said earlier, we do not speak the same language, read the same meanings into these issues nor do we agree on the limits that "egg-as-person" movements seek to put on living, breathing women.

I can respect your right to live your life according to your religious or personal beliefs and interpretations of these concepts; I can not respect your or others insistence on imposing these on me or others.

 

Jodi

Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Senior Political Editor on July 7, 2009 - 2:58pm.

Jodi,

The point is, NO ONE ever said pregnancy began at implantation prior to about 1980. No one.

The idea that the start of pregnancy changes simply because we would have it so is absurd. People have been attempting to change the definition of pregnancy so we could experiment on living human embryos and do IVF. But that ignores the reality.

As I've pointed out ad nauseum here, scientific and medical texts do not address when personhood begins because the idea of "persons" and "rights" are religious concepts.

The idea of "rights" is peculiar to Judeo-Christian understanding. None of the ancients held it, quite a lot of the East still doesn't. Hinduism doesn't believe in it, neither does Buddhism, the idea that someone has rights simply because s/he exist is unknown among Islam.

So, here's the irony. The moment you invoke the woman's "rights", you invoke a Judeo-Christian tradition of personhood (image and likeness of God), divine rights, inalienable rights, but at that same moment, you arrogate to yourself the "right" to decide who is a human person and who is not.

When anyone complains, you yell about how they are bringing religion into the discussion, even though you started it by invoking rights and arbitrarily deciding personhood.

Then you switch to a "legal" definition, ignoring that the entire Western tradition of legality comes out of the Catholic Church, which codified the old pagan Roman laws by rectifying them into a "rights-based" structure built around Catholic theology and philosophy. The earliest universities in Western Europe were created by the Catholic Church precisely to advance the study of law, philosophy and theology according to the Christian tradition.

But you ignore all that because it doesn't suit you.

The pro-abortion position is incoherent nonsense, whether we are discussing the religious, the scientific, or the legal aspects.

Submitted by SteveK on July 7, 2009 - 6:00pm.

The ancient Roman laws allowed for anyone to discard a baby they did not want. Throwing the child on a hillside to perish. So, if tfhe Church codified Roman law, then it should allow for the discarding of unwanted children, before or after birth. That the Church, of which I am a member, advanced the study of law and philosophy, doesn't mean that it can project its beliefs on others. They tried that once during the Inquisition. It didn't work. Most laws are based on Hammurabi's code, which predates the Church by centuries. To promote "personhood" status on a non-viable zygote, let a lone an unfertilized egg, is ludicrous. Does this amendment cover sperm cells as well? If so, a lot of young boys will be breaking the law.

Submitted by mike on July 7, 2009 - 9:57pm.

Define "the Church." Are you refering to the Roman Catholic Church? Or are you refering to the Christian way - which are two different things. The first is a works based religion and the second is a faith based relationship. One would NEVER codify the discarding of infants and the other would. IF you are correct in stating the practice was in fact codified by anyone but the early pagan religions.

Submitted by drofma on July 7, 2009 - 10:17pm.

I suggest that you live your life according to your beliefs and that you refrain from continually attempting to inflict your beliefs on those of us who don't share them.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 15, 2009 - 10:57am.

Dear Jodi-Give up trying to make sense of nonsense. Anyone can copy from a medical text! These people are dangerous because they have can't connect with reality; their religion has spread to their brains. They live in a world that denies any "idea" contrary to their "doxies", and too much reality would destroy them. The idea of "humanity", or Christian love is lost on them; they are nothing more than ideologues; left-overs from the age of witch hunters.
Although we must keep an eye on them; if they ever do get to the level of the Supreme Court, they will meet with the same fate as did the psuedo-scientists trying to convince the Supremes, that Creationism is real science. I would buy tickets to that encounter!!!

Jackie Bell

Submitted by Jackie Bell on July 7, 2009 - 7:56pm.

I amazed to see Lee Silver quoted here in this context. I recall the quote itself about pre-embryo/embryo definitions, but its an odd reply to what Jodi actually said. I've read his works (Challenging Nature as well) and also don't see how these books support the pro-life agenda.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 7, 2009 - 3:22pm.

Sir:

You--are a "fruit cake"; a real live mental malformation.
You could, effectively,be a stalker, or a peeping Tom, or perhaps a reclusive who mails time bombs to sinners. Who knows? Or perhaps you just have too much time on your hands! But mainly, sir--you are frightening, like the rest of your ilk.

I do not want any of your "help"!! I have a Living Will, and will die as I please. Just when I think that I've "seen it all"--!! Get a life, perhaps a job and let the rest of us alone!!

Submitted by Jackie Bell on July 7, 2009 - 5:45pm.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news Steve, but your blowhard post still fails to prove your basic argument that human "life" begins at conception. This is the problem with you wingers when you try to wage an argument for your twisted ideology. You can't seem to grasp the fact that word choice is of extreme importance, especially when you're talking about jamming your beliefs down society's throat through the legislative process. Every example you've stated as your proof clearly shows that human DEVELOPMENT begins at conception. But DEVELOPMENT is not synonymous with "life."

To develop means to "go through a process of natural growth, differentiation, or evolution by successive changes," while LIFE is officially defined by Merriam Webster as "the period from birth to death."

Your lengthy argument carries no weight.

Submitted by Annoyed on July 7, 2009 - 8:59pm.

You define an embryo as a person, a human being.
You use 14 quotes to support your statement.
The problem is, of your 14 quotes, not one defines an embryo as a human being.
Instead, all but one say the embryo is "the beginning", or "the starting", or when it "begins the developing" (or the development), of life.
The beginning, or the start, of something is not the thing itself.
The beginning of a journey is not the journey.
The beginning of life is not a life.

Submitted by m. brio on July 7, 2009 - 9:53pm.

But that still doesn't change the fact that religious law/doctrine and civil law are two very different things. The purpose of civil law is to provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Civil law imposes order extrinsically ("I won't drive drunk because I fear getting a ticket"). God's law imposes order intrinsically ("I won't drive drunk because it is morally wrong to expose others to danger ="). Sorry, Steve-O! You cannot legislate morality. It has to come from within. You can, however, make reasonable laws to provide a civilized context in which individuals are free to make their own moral choices according to their private beliefs . (P.S: I hope your personal life improves so that you no longer feel compelled to waste your life trying to force others to submit to your religious rules.)

Submitted by ebr on July 7, 2009 - 11:10pm.

preview your posts to confirm that you have closed your tags properly.

 

Thanks.

Submitted by Arium on July 8, 2009 - 6:40am.

I have never posted here before this and now I know it's an uptight and inhospitable place that judges people on the basis of their formatting expertise rather than the worth of their ideas.

So thanks for letting me know that I needn't bother returning! Twit!

MAYBE you should preview your comments for just plain mean-spiritedness.

Submitted by ebr on July 9, 2009 - 10:31pm.

you are welcome to post here.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 9, 2009 - 10:43pm.

Do any of your books point out that the majority of fertilized eggs don't eventually develop into a full-term baby? Nature "aborts" many fertilized eggs, should we charge nature (or God) with murder when a fertilized egg doesn't make it out of the womb? Using fertilization as a point to start personhood is ridiculous.

Submitted by msk on July 8, 2009 - 11:16am.

The Lee Silver books do go into the fact that the majority of fertilized eggs don't develop into a full term baby. Also twinning post-fertilization, teratomas, parasitic twins, fetus in fetu, etc. In addition, it is known that two separately fertilized eggs can combine in their embryo stages into a single entity to develop into a single baby.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 11, 2009 - 3:26pm.

I actually know someone who is the product of two separate fertilized eggs. (I believe it's about two weeks after implantation when one finds out whether one has one ordinary embryo, two identical twins, or one chimera, and I've yet to find a religious explanation for how that all works if the soul shows up at conceptions. As far as I know, my friend is a single person with a single soul, despite having an interesting genetic makeup.)

Does God infallibly know it will happen and provide only one of the original fertilized eggs with souls (or provide two if it's going to be twins)? Yank one of the souls back when they merge (or provide a second when it splits)?

Being agnostic, I think it's sort of a ridiculous thought experiment, but I'd really like to know how these fit into ensouled-at-conception worldviews (biological life is quite a bit simpler to quantify than a soul, which I think is what these debates are really about).

Submitted by Mel on July 16, 2009 - 7:11pm.

So human life begins after implantation? Cool, so lets ban abortion after implantation.

"It is a child not a choice"

Submitted by Momto5 on July 13, 2009 - 3:12pm.

So human life begins at impplantation? Cool, so lets ban abortion after implantation!!

"It is a child not a choice"

Submitted by Momto5 on July 13, 2009 - 3:16pm.

she said pregnancy begins at implantation.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 13, 2009 - 6:40pm.

some of the examples already stated above occur post-implantation. Read the Silver books for starters.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 13, 2009 - 7:14pm.

should also say...many of them are 'implanted' scenarios.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 13, 2009 - 7:31pm.

I scanned your post and when I saw the addition of "Hussein", then I knew the vitriol abounded! Sigh, so sad...and yes, you are obviously a man. You can never ever know what it is like to have your reproductive system legislated, to be made a criminal. I suggest you read "The Means of Reproduction" by Michelle Goldberg.
So let's say your wife is pregnant with the third or fourth child. It is an ectopic pregnancy, but thanks to your kind, the laws are so restrictive, police are stationed at hospitals and doctors are not allowed to remove the ectopic pregancy while the "fetus" is still alive and must wait for it to burst, thus causing hemorrhaging and death. Boom! now you are a single parent of 3 kids and you lost your wife and your "human life". Think that doesn't happen? Think again...happens in Latin America. What about your 9 yr old daughter being raped? Oh right...she has to carry your grandchild to term. Oh my! What if she is raped by a black man! You are now the proud grandaddy of a mixed race child...hope you name him Hussein.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 7, 2009 - 5:08pm.

As Monty Python said: "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate".

If an egg is going to be defined as a person, then why not sperm too? If you fall for this "egg as person" routine, then it should also be against the law for a man to masturbate, or even have a wet dream. Maybe we should outlaw vasectomies too.

I am so sick of this "love the fetus, hate the child" hypocrisy. If you love babies so much, then why aren't you people leaning on Congress to fund Headstart? Decent affordable day care for all parents without regard to a parent's ability to pay? Health care services for all children? Twenty percent of children in the US grow up in poverty--what is your plan to take care of the children who are already here?

Abortion is an emotional wedge issue which big business uses to stoke people to vote against their own best interests. Stop falling for it, people!

Submitted by Anonymous88 on July 7, 2009 - 5:57pm.

You've hit the nail on the head. If an egg is a person then so is a sperm. This means that men who masturbate are "baby killers". We should jail them all even if that means there are no men left on the streets.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 7, 2009 - 6:21pm.

Ha! With 100% of the male population locked up, then birth control & abortion wouldn't be needed! Maybe this IS the way to go...

Submitted by Anonymous on July 8, 2009 - 11:24am.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!!

Submitted by Epicurienne on July 12, 2009 - 1:16pm.

Spare me the victimhood speech, honey.

If you're going to invoke law, then you have to remember that law is not made by paying attention to how your gonads are or are not hung, nor is it about the color of your skin.

If you knew anything about theology, you would know how the problem of ectopic pregnancy is addressed through the principle of double effect. Since you don't, I won't bother. In case you are wondering, it's scientifically impossible to conceive a mixed race child as there is only one race - human.

The problem is, most of the pro-aborts here are talking through their hats. None of you have ever really thought through your positions. You don't know where any of your "ideas" come from - you just jabber away about them as if they made sense.

Submitted by SteveK on July 7, 2009 - 6:16pm.

How women dare to have ectopic pregnancies? They also should be prosecuted for criminal intent.
They know this will destroy the embryo and its personhood.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 7, 2009 - 6:23pm.

There are three RACES (Negro, Mongolian and Caucasian) - there is no human "race." The word "human" refers to a species. Another word for that species is homo sapiens. As for Embryos,fetuses, etc., I say KEEP ABORTION SAFE AND LEGAL and if people really don't want kids, PRACTICE BIRTH CONTROL. Embryos are potential humans (if they are actually born, even if a little earlier than planned - because they can survive outside the womb), then they can be considered human beings with rights. As long as they are in mommy's body, fergit it!!!! No rights necessary.

Submitted by Marisa on July 7, 2009 - 6:51pm.

Why doesn't some pro-lifer answer this - "If you love babies so much, then why aren't you people leaning on Congress to fund Headstart? Decent affordable day care for all parents without regard to a parent's ability to pay? Health care services for all children? Twenty percent of children in the US grow up in poverty--what is your plan to take care of the children who are already here?"

What does your theology tell you about your moral responsibility to children who are already born, and through no fault of their own, go to bed hungry every night, go to bed abused or beaten, sick or dying of preventable diseases, right here in the US?

If some of the energy spent worshiping fetuses got spent on the children who are already born, you would surely be doing God's work.

Submitted by Anonymous566 on July 7, 2009 - 7:29pm.