E-Book: 101 Reasons Not to Have an Abortion, A Girl’s Guide to Informed Choices

« Genetics: The Nature v. Nurture Argument

Pro-Life Academy. Biology. Embryogenesis (III) »

E-Book: 101 Reasons Not to Have an Abortion, A Girl’s Guide to Informed Choices

February 10, 2010 by Gerard M. Nadal

This is an amazing book and available free as a PDF: E-Book: 101 Reasons Not to Have an Abortion, A Girl’s Guide to Informed Choices. Click Here.

Posted in Abortion | 72 Comments

72 Responses

on February 10, 2010 at 1:12 PM Bethany

Great book! Is there a way to purchase it in real form?
on February 10, 2010 at 2:32 PM Russ Rentler, M.D.

Dear Gerard:

I am a pro-life physician, specializing in geriatrics and spend my days taking care of the patients in the end of life in skilled nursing facilities in eastern PA.
Pennsylvania law makers are considering a bill to allow physician assisted suicide. I am doing what I can to alert the public and my patients to oppose this. Pray for us.
God bless your work and ministry,

Russ Rentler, M.D.
on February 10, 2010 at 4:45 PM Siarlys Jenkins

Of course the first thing I had to do was download the book and read it. I got to page 55, making notes as I went along. It is honestly not a book intended simply to inform, to present all the facts. But it does present a number of inconvenient facts — that is, those inconvenient to alternative arguments, and does it well.

Some of my initial notes:

“May your choices be informed, your regrets be few and your life be full.”

Excellent — nobody in their right mind could quibble about this.

“If, after reading this book — all 101 reasons — you still
think that abortion is the best choice for you, then guess what? You can go ahead knowing that you were fully informed. And if I do happen to convince you won’t you be grateful that you read this book?”

Precisely the basis on which any decision should be made.

“It’s your choice. That’s right. The decision is all yours, now and always.”

As long as that is the foundation of any further discussion or debate, there are no constitutional issues to spar over. There is just the presentation of data and analysis, and of course emotion and perspective, to willing listeners. (then the march for life could be rescheduled in April, a really nice month to be in D.C., most years, not too hot, not to cold, because it won’t be relevant to be there on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Turnout might even increase.

While her definition of “informed choice” is excellent, her definition of abortion is, of course, manipulation. The “definitions” are fair comment. She should give an honest DEFINITION. such as a-bor-tion: termination of pregnancy by removing a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus from the uterus. That’s what it IS. Whether it is appropriate or desirable is a serious question. She could even add, “Millions of people believe that no matter what stage it is, what is removed is a human baby.”

There is a certain emotional distortion in presenting huge, blown up ultrasound images. If they were presented life-size, the impact would be different. In any case, any doctor who compared it to a dot of ink on a page is indeed lying. If he (or she) is confident of what they are doing, they should have no need for such subterfuge.

If the information is accurate, I would say somewhere between 18 to 23 weeks should be the cut-off for abortion, unless the mother’s life is in danger. (Opening and closing eyes, and REM). But I would like to compare that with information on EEG and metabolic independence.

It is interesting that the increasing complexity and diversity of organ development is offered as evidence that this is a baby, not a lump of tissue. That is a valid line of reasoning, very valid. But it does undermine the notion that a zygote is a human baby. She mentions detectable brainwaves. Very important empiric. I’m not an expert on exactly what brain waves mean, but my general first thought is, if there are brain waves, leave it alone.

She says it is all science, but she does talk extensively about what God wants, intends, and expects. That is a valid thing to consider, and to ask others to consider, but the debate is not a pat little recitation of a scientific consensus. It is a very complex debate involving science, philosophy, religious faith, and many other perspectives.

Pictures of any open abdominal surgery will make your stomach retch, as will pictures of a removed cancer. Most definitely a fetus, whether a baby or not, is of much different significance than a cancer. But the fact that the pictures make your stomach retch are not a good basis for deciding the right course of action.

There are other stories — the women who sue their doctor for not telling them about a trisomy-21 test result, or even mentioning the option of abortion… those who are confident they made the right choice. The fact that 93% of women with trisomy-21 positives DO opt for abortion strongly suggests that there are a significant number of women who find it the right choice. A well balanced effort to make sure a woman has all the information should include some of their stories. But then, they don’t have the same motive for getting up and talking about it on You-Tube.

Anyway, its perfectly fair for this book to be made available. The fact that many women truly regret having an abortion, are miserable, depressed, have years of remorse, should certainly be available to any woman thinking about it. So should the fact that not all women feel that way. And of course we can all agree that the edict “The final decision is up to the physician” is always wrong, in any procedure.
on February 11, 2010 at 12:27 PM Siarlys Jenkins

This book has given me another idea, having had 24 hours to think about it. In the next week or so, I’m going to draft what I would offer as a neutral and balanced presentation of information that should be presented to a woman who is considering abortion. I will rely on this book for the data — I have no reason to think that the author has made up, distorted, or omitted the salient facts. She’s been quite thorough. She has even included empirics that, in my seldom humble opinion, undermine the viewpoint she obviously favors.

The basic problem with “required counselling” is that it was introduced as, and has continued to be, a political football. One side wants to make sure every single point which might motivate a woman to say no are emphasized. The other side wants to downplay those factors, and highlight others. Therefore, it is impossible to prescribe by law that this, that, or the other should be presented, without entangling the whole thing in court challenges, legislative filibuster, and a misleading media circus. (In case anyone is getting sensitive to the phrase “media circus,” I’m definitely talking about Planned Parenthood, but not exclusively about Planned Parenthood.

We should be able to put ALL the facts together in a way that each deserves serious consideration, but does not pre-judge for the individual woman concerned what weight to give each of them. Then, finding counsellors dispassionate and compassionate enough (that’s a hard combination in itself) to remain neutral, is going to be the next challenge.

It would probably be an imposition to post anything so long on someone else’s site. I may post it at Alexandria. If requested, I will email a copy to Gerard.
on February 11, 2010 at 6:01 PM Mary Catherine

how can one remain “neutral” about the destruction of another human being?

Do you feel dispassionate and compassionate when you see pictures of a man killed in armed conflict?

Do you say, “this was his choice to join his country’s military and therefore this makes his death alright or his killing of another human being ok?”

I think to pare the abortion question down to being “neutral” is base.

A real living human being DIES, every single time a baby is aborted, everytime a woman “chooses” abortion, no matter how “thought out” the whole thing is. Because the fact of the matter is that it is always the wrong choice.

That’s not neutral. That’s not dispassionate.
That is sick and depraved. 😦
on February 12, 2010 at 2:25 PM Siarlys Jenkins

Well Mary Catherine, if everyone agreed with you, there would be nothing to discuss, and nobody would be seeking abortions. Right now, everyone with strong passions is either flooding the airwaves with their own version, or trying to suppress the other version, motivated by exactly the sort of indignation you express here. Both sides want to “protect” women from the “coercion” of being “forced to” hear what the other side has to say, and both sides want their version to be mandatory.

Even presentation of observable facts is twisted to favor one viewpoint or the other.

Now, we could throw it open to a free market, letting every viewpoint squawk and letting pregnant women seek what they wish and find what they may…

… or we can try to put the known facts in a context that lets a fully informed woman make up her own mind. ALL the facts, not just the way abortion providers want to present it, but also, not just the way CPCs want to present it.

Nobody who is confident that the facts are objectively favorable to their own viewpoint, or that their own viewpoint is firmly rooted in undeniable facts, should fear a “neutral” presentation. Obviously, if you are right, a neutral presentation will win people to your side every time. Right?
on February 12, 2010 at 4:37 PM Bethany

Obviously, if you are right, a neutral presentation will win people to your side every time. Right?

There is no such thing as neutral when it comes to abortion.
on February 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM Mary Catherine

SJ: you never answered my questions

How can a person be neutral about the destruction of another human being?

“Even presentation of observable facts is twisted to favor one viewpoint or the other.”

There is no such thing as a “neutral presentation”.

There are only facts. Facts speak the truth. The truth is not neutral.
It takes a side.

The bias enters when one “interprets” facts to mean something else.

Fact: an unborn baby is a human being. This is a scientifically PROVABLE FACT.
Unfortunately, proaborts do not accept this fact.

They take this fact and LIE or misinterpret it.
For example they ignore the science and say:
A baby is not a human being. OR A baby is only a human being when the mother says it is (read, wants the baby).

That’s bias. That is not truth.
on February 12, 2010 at 8:29 PM Bethany

Excellent points, Mary Catherine!
on February 13, 2010 at 2:05 PM Siarlys Jenkins

The entire question, Mary Catherine, is WHETHER a fetus is a human being or not. I have heard, mostly here, and from Erin Manning, that there are some doctors who freely say, yes, I kill babies, but that is OK. I do remember meeting a woman once, who said abortion does kill a baby, but that is all right, because a woman has a right to control her own body. So I know those lines of thought exist in the world. But for 99 percent of us, the point of debate is, whether, or starting at what point in its development, is the fetus a human being?

True believers in any cause, throughout history, have denied that anyone could be neutral. Joseph Stalin, for example, said “In time of revolution there are no neutrals.” But objectively, in the mind of everyone else, neutral means, not committed irrevocably to either side of the debate. There is a debate. There are people living in the world, millions of them, who do not share your convictions. Someone capable of looking at both sides of the debate, and saying, neither of you have convinced me, let’s try to put the facts together without advocacy one way or the other, would be, by definition, neutral.

You might call that immoral, but it is neutral.

Facts do not take a side, nor are facts neutral. Facts simply exist. They can be observed, measured, defined. IF the facts, without adjectives or argument attached, favor what you advocate, then anyone examining those facts should come to the same conclusion you have.

Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates have declaimed loudly that pregnant women are being misled, lied to, manipulated, denied the truth… and if this is true, then the remedy is to put all the facts together, adorn them with no attempt to pressure a woman’s decision, then step back and let her decide.

Apparently, you lack confidence that the facts, even all of them, would convince every woman to do what you believe is right. In that case, it would be only accurate to suggest that you too want to manipulate, pressure, mislead, that you will do anything necessary, including lie, to prevent a woman from choosing to have an abortion.
on February 13, 2010 at 7:01 PM Mary Catherine

“The entire question, Mary Catherine, is WHETHER a fetus is a human being or not.”

duh? What?

THAT is NOT the question because science has answered that question.
A fetus has 46 chromosomes. It is undoubtedly a human being. It cant be anything else. Law of biogenesis and all that jazz.

The fact is, that people who support abortion feel this is the question. It must be THE question in their minds because if a baby isn’t human then it can be destroyed.
If it is human, then they are all a bunch of cold-blooded murderers with the deaths of millions of babies now on their hands.

Unfortunately, I stopped reading your comment after the above quoted statement sj.
To have to debate whether two human beings mate and produce another human being – is IMO a waste of time and energy.
Learn biology. 😦
on February 13, 2010 at 8:05 PM Mary Catherine

you might want to finish your discussion with Bobby on the Feb 9 thread about the status of the zygote.

I think you need to resolve that question first. 😦
on February 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM Michelle

While this e-book makes some solid points, on a quick cursory glance it has some serious issues. As a pro-life Christian, currently working with women in crisis pregnancies, I am particularly disturbed by the content of reason 21 when the author explains her belief that the souls of aborted children are reincarnated, her evidences being several stories of parents with dreams/visions and stories of statements of very young children. There is absolutely no scriptural basis for this view.

Aside from disagreeing on this point, I am hungry for well-researched literature that does not depend on Christian arguments for the protection of women and children from abortion, as most of my clients are simply not interested in any reasoning that has ties to spirituality.

Thanks, Gerard, for your solid, biological evidences!
on February 14, 2010 at 11:13 AM Bethany

Oh wow, Michelle, I completely missed that. That is actually one reason that people use to JUSTIFY abortion. I am really shocked to see that in there.
on February 14, 2010 at 12:59 PM Mary Catherine

It’s amazing the lengths these people go to justify the practice of abortion.
Sad.
on February 14, 2010 at 10:46 PM Siarlys Jenkins

Before I read the latest comments, or say anything else, my first draft is posted at

http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/neutral-and-balanced-pre-abortion-counselling/

I left a couple of days for the usual crowd at Alexandria to comment, but all of you are welcome to read it, and comment, there or here. So far, its making much of a stir. The consensus appears to be, most people, and most women, presented with all this information, will skip over it as just too much to think about, or even read. That would be kind of sad, but, it does seem to be typical in many areas of life. We just have so much information available that we blank out. I hope this data is important enough not to do that.
on February 14, 2010 at 10:52 PM Siarlys Jenkins

Please Mary Catherine, “all that jazz” doesn’t cut it. At least Dr. Nadal has spent years of professional study in his field, although I think he views the facts he knows with an eye toward an interpretation which matches what he already believes. But you don’t evidence that you know science — just that you’ve heard something you like and you wave it like a banner.

I will of course be getting back to Bobbie. That was a good discussion.

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this before, but I had a scenario in mind once of a soul hanging out wherever souls hang out before a body is available for them, noticing that their designated mother has had a bout of rubella, and the half-finished framework of their intended body is badly damaged. I hear that little soul crying “Mommy, please, take that damage body out. That’s not the one I want. I want a body I can see and hear with, that I can run and jump in, please, start over!” Pure speculation, of course, but something worth considering.
on February 15, 2010 at 2:52 AM jasper

Siarly,
I read your link, it’s all old news and doesn’t really matter. You seem to think that just because an unborn baby can’t survive on it’s own, feel pain or isn’t developed enough, somehow gives people the right to exterminate them.

No.
on February 15, 2010 at 10:00 AM Bethany

Siarlys, as I expected, it was all manipulation from the beginning, using the most cold and clinical terms to describe the unborn child, and explaining the reasons that you believe having an abortion would be morally acceptable.

That’s not neutral- it’s pro-abortion.

Like Mary Catherine has said, and as I have said- there is no such thing as neutral when it comes to abortion. Your entire post was written in a way to sway women to feel nothing for their unborn child.
on February 15, 2010 at 1:31 PM Serena Gaefke

Hi Bethany,
If you’re still interested the book should be available in print in about a month. 🙂
on February 15, 2010 at 2:48 PM Bethany

Serena, I might be interested actually- I volunteer at a CPC and it could be a great tool! 🙂 How much will it cost?
on February 15, 2010 at 2:49 PM Bethany

And thank you! 🙂
on February 15, 2010 at 2:52 PM Mary Catherine

Please Mary Catherine, “all that jazz” doesn’t cut it. At least Dr. Nadal has spent years of professional study in his field, although I think he views the facts he knows with an eye toward an interpretation which matches what he already believes. But you don’t evidence that you know science — just that you’ve heard something you like and you wave it like a banner.

SJ, I have more science than you will ever care to see. 😉
Your comments demonstrate a profound ignorance and complete lack of understanding of even the most basic biology. And that’s sad because you can’t have a reasonable discussion about life if you don’t understand the biology.

First off, an unborn baby must be a human being. If you believe otherwise, you haven’t proved to me or anyone else on this blog how this ain’t so – biologically speaking that is. And you’ll have to do it scientifically.
Because right now, the basic biological FACTS (which are neutral) demonstrate that when a human male and a human female procreate, they produce a human offspring.
It’s not a spider, or a chimpanzee. It’s a fully human being with 46 chromosomes.

What you are saying and don’t seem to realize it, is that you do not consider the human baby to be a person.
Big difference between being human and being a person?
In your mind yes.
In my mind – NO.
A human being must always be a considered a person.
Who will draw that line otherwise?
You? No thank you.
Doctors? Bioethicists? Peter Singer?
And what will be that line?
on February 15, 2010 at 3:12 PM Gerard M. Nadal

SJ,

I have been in private correspondence with Mary Catherine and trust me when I tell you that her scientific background is substantial, to say the least.

Please take care that in the heat of the moment you don’t stray into the twin minefields of presumption and condescension.

As for me interpreting science in light of a priori faith issues, fear not.

I don’t.

Carl Anderson, Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus said it best in an open letter to then VP candidate Joe Biden:

“I recognize that you struggle with your conscience on the issue, and have said that you accept the Church’s teaching that life begins at conception – as a matter of faith. But modern medical science leaves no doubt about the fact that each person’s life begins at conception. It is not a matter of personal religious belief, but of science.”

AGAIN SJ, and I will hunt you down now on every thread until you answer this question fully,

How is it that you prescind from every embryology text cited on this blog (and they are many), that A NEW HUMAN ORGANISM, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ITS PARENTS COMES INTO BEING AT THE MOMENT OF FERTILIZATION?

You do the very thing in you lack of scientific training that you accused MC of doing in what you presumed to be a comparable level of scientific literacy.

You ignore truth as taught by embryology and substitute your own criteria. In the spirit of moving beyond NARAL talking points about brains and memories, I must insist on coming to understand why it is that you know more than the best minds in the field.
on February 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM Bethany

Siarlys, not only did your blog topic contain manipulation, at many times I saw outright lies.

Example…

Lie, per Siarlys:
By eleven weeks, which is a little over two months, well within the first trimester of pregnancy, the embryo shows the basic outline of the baby it will become. Here is a life-size photo of the embryo. As you can see, it is almost invisible. It is no more than an inch long. The round area where all the organs of a head will grow over the next several months is about seven tenths of an inch all the way around. Here is a blown up photo. As you can see, there is a round head, the beginnings of arms and legs, and while the hands aren’t showing yet, there are tiny feet. You can see tiny spots where the eyes will grow. Those are not eyes, nor is there a brain or a nervous system.

Truth:

The site of future brain development is first recognizable with the appearance of the neural plate by 2 weeks, 4 days. By 3 weeks the neural plate thickens first at the head end of the embryo and folds into the neural tube which will form the brain and the spinal cord.11 By 3 weeks, the 3 primary sections of the brain are identifiable. These sections are called the forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain.12

http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit3.php#neuralplate

By 4 weeks, 5 days, the brain enlarges 50% since Carnegie Stage, and by 4½ weeks portions of the brain forming the right and left cerebral hemispheres appear.

http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit5.php#hemispheres

Individualized brainwaves recorded via electroencephalogram (e-lek’tro-en-sef’a-lo-gram), or EEG, have been reported as early as 6 weeks, 2 days.2

http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit7.php#brainwaves

By 9 weeks, the nerve receptors in the face, palms of the hands, and soles of the feet can sense and respond to light touch.7 Following a light touch on the sole of the foot, the fetus will bend the hip and knee and may curl the toes.8

http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit9.php#synapsecerebralcortex

At 8 weeks (past conception) the brain is highly complex and constitutes almost half of the embryo’s total body weight.

http://www.ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=43

*********************************

Siarlys, how can you truly consider your piece neutral when contains lies such as that? Your claim is so easily disproven- the brain exists LONG before 11 weeks in the unborn child.

You want to pretend you’re on the side of the woman? Try telling the truth.
on February 15, 2010 at 7:42 PM Siarlys Jenkins

Dr. Nadal, if Mary Catherine wrote in a manner which evidenced familiarity with data, and ability to present that data in a rational analysis, leading to a plausible hypothesis or theory, I would immediately recognize that she was familiar with scientific research and methods. Unfortunately, nothing she writes here evidences anything of the kind. That you have had a private conversation with her, and vouch for her, suggests that she may have a degree or two, but what I have seen her write is the language of a cheer-leader, not a scientist. I have made no presumption, and it requires no condescension. It merely requires reading what she writes.

You keep talking about hunting me down and demanding an answer to a question — if you look at the last post where you cited close to a dozen descriptions from various text-books, you will find I have already stated quite openly why I do not find in those descriptive, even definitive, paragraphs, the proof you claim for the conclusion you desire.

Is the zygote that forms when a human sperm and a human egg combine a human zygote? Of course it is. Is it a unique new pattern of DNA? Most certainly. Is is genetically distinct from either mother or father? Inevitably. Do the epigenetics of this cell set it to a pattern of cell division which will produce, not mere carbon copies of itself, but a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus, with increasing diversity of cell types forming more and more complex organs, with complex inter-relationships to each other, resulting in a human baby? Absolutely.

Now, I must refer you to one of your colleagues, Douglas Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute (HSCI). He got into this line of research, by the way, after his six month old son nearly died of Type 1 diabetes.

When the class discussed the morality of embryonic-stem-cell research, Melton invited Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to present arguments against the field. Melton asked Doerflinger if he considered a day-old embryo and a 6-year-old to be moral equivalents; when Doerflinger responded yes, Melton countered by asking why society accepts the freezing of embryos but not the freezing of 6-year-olds.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1874717-2,00.html

What is my own thinking? The issue of homicide, murder, infanticide, the right of a person to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, arises when a complete human being is present, not when a cell, or cells, capable of growing into a human being is present. Nothing in any of the citations from biology textbooks you have offered makes either one of us more or less wrong on that point. You began with an a priori moral viewpoint, which you are entitled to advance and speak for, and every bit of empirical data which comes your way, you tuck into your existing viewpoint as one more feather in your cap.

As Bethany and Michelle have both noted, somewhat to their dismay, Serena Gaefke mixes scientific data AND arguments concerning God, spirituality, even some speculation about the soul. As I’ve mentioned, Erin Manning’s reader, John Thayer Jensen, is quite honest about the fact that he considers the zygote off limits, not on any scientific grounds, but because God put it off limits.

Now, as to my own fitness to speak. On the web site of retired Oxford professor J.R. Lucas is an excellent essay concerning the Wilberforce – Huxley debate, when Darwin’s propositions were new. Among other things, Lucas observes that “The British Association had been founded with a largely amateur and unprofessional public in mind. Science, in the first half of the nineteenth century as in previous centuries, was part of the intellectual culture of mankind, into which all might enter and from which all might profit. But from 1860 onwards it becomes more of a closed shop, with its own puritan ethic, from which amateurs are more and more excluded.”

I don’t have a college degree. I took some high school science, I am capable of reading on the subject, I have a good layman’s understanding of published papers. I have contributed to a number of published reference works, mostly history, including history of science, including some from Oxford University Press. I am a well informed citizen, capable of offering my thoughts in debate on matters of public interest.

I don’t ask Mary Catherine to have a degree in order to have a well-informed opinion on science, but I expect her to speak to evidence and conclusions, rather than waving a rhetorical banner. I take second place to no-one in this debate just because they have an advanced degree. That’s a little like all the evolution-creation debates where the evolutionists point with pride to all the doctors of divinity on their side, and the creationists point with equal and equally misplaced pride to all the Ph.D’s on their side. Ph.D’s are pretty cheap these days — not every Ph.D, some represent solid work that really does advance human knowledge, but there is a good deal of debased coin out there too.

A degree is not a license to tell someone else to shut up. To advocate that science be open to the general public does not excuse an individual, who wishes to participate, to spout nonsense without examining facts and peer-reviewed research, which is in fact available to the public to examine.

Carl Anderson’s letter is evidence of nothing except his own desire to wave the banner of “science” to suppress further discussion. His pat little sentence provides no evidence whether he understands any relevant biology or not. He is engaged in a political polemic, and his words do not go beyond the purely polemical. (Incidentally, I believe Biden should refrain from public comment on Roman Catholic doctrine. As an elected public servant, he is accountable to his district, state, or nation, not to the doctrine of his church, but by the same token, as an obedient Catholic, he should not argue in public with his bishop about what church doctrine is. It confuses the real constitutional issue. That goes for Pelosi too.)

Jasper: I know what I wrote is old news — it is all directly out of Serena’s book. I told you that’s what I would attempt to do.

Bethany: I wanted it to be cold and clinical. I’m looking at whether I can take the facts Serena laid out, strip away Serena’s honest and unapologetic advocacy, and present the same facts in a manner that does NOT advise a woman what to do, just lays out the facts.

If you find that pro-abortion, then I would say you rely on manipulation and coercion, not facts, to sway women to follow your advice. On the other hand, if your position is simply based on facts, then cold presentation of facts ought to make every woman who reads them “choose life.”

I found the facts challenging to my own previous notions. I had to think about them a good deal, and I remain open the possibility that the boundary between second and third trimester is a bit late in pregnancy to allow abortion. But the key points for me remain, metabolic independence from the mother, and presence of cognition, perhaps best measured by EEG waves, but there may be better ways to tell.
on February 15, 2010 at 8:10 PM Mary Catherine

“Dr. Nadal, if Mary Catherine wrote in a manner which evidenced familiarity with data, and ability to present that data in a rational analysis, leading to a plausible hypothesis or theory, I would immediately recognize that she was familiar with scientific research and methods. Unfortunately, nothing she writes here evidences anything of the kind. That you have had a private conversation with her, and vouch for her, suggests that she may have a degree or two, but what I have seen her write is the language of a cheer-leader, not a scientist. I have made no presumption, and it requires no condescension. It merely requires reading what she writes.”

I see no need to present data here. I don’t just have a “degree or two” SJ. While I certainly have more than several advanced degrees, I also have a great deal of experience with pregnant women, babies and prolife work.
I’ve heard all the arguments and what I see here is a person who is clinging to the only argument left to the proaborts – that of personhood.
30 years ago, you proaborts claimed that women were pregnant with blobs of tissue and blood.
We proved otherwise.
We did it with science – science that was available already in the 1960’s.
The arguments have moved along since then mainly because those who believe that unborn babies are human persons from the moment of conception have been able to disprove every single lie thrown out by those who support the euphemistic “right to choose”.

The baby isn’t human because it can’t think, can’t feel pain etc. etc.
Funny thing that, because now we have more and more evidence that babies learn in the womb and gasp! – they even feel what appears to be pain.

There’s only two arguments left to you – the bodily autonomy argument and the baby isn’t a person.

Guess what? It’s not her body. It’s the baby’s body.

And the fact that you and thousands of other proaborts don’t believe the unborn baby isn’t a person doesn’t matter a whit.
It don’t make it so. You have no science to support your belief. And you have no reason either.

“I don’t ask Mary Catherine to have a degree in order to have a well-informed opinion on science, but I expect her to speak to evidence and conclusions, rather than waving a rhetorical banner.”

First off, I don’t need to speak to evidence here on this blog. Dr. Nadal has produced post after post on the biological development of the human person.
The fact is, that you do not accept the science as presented.
I have to ask myself why this is?
Bobby, a brilliant mathematician, has presented excellent comments on the nature of the unborn child.
Dr. Nadal has listed scientific evidence from embryology texts, standard in the field of medicine, which it is apparent you do not accept.
If you do not accept these facts, why am I to bother arguing with you?
What would convince you of the humanity of the unborn baby?
I can’t say it any better than Dr. G.
A scientist does not publish these sort of facts because they “feel” that the unborn baby is a human person.
The become convinced from their research that they are working with a preborn human being.
on February 15, 2010 at 8:21 PM Mary Catherine

“Siarlys, how can you truly consider your piece neutral when contains lies such as that? Your claim is so easily disproven- the brain exists LONG before 11 weeks in the unborn child.”

“You want to pretend you’re on the side of the woman? Try telling the truth.”

I can answer this.
Because Siarlys isn’t interested in facts.
He is not interested in science either.

If he had presented the facts this would indeed be a neutral piece. Presented with the science of the unborn child, most women will choose life. It’s not rocket science to see that a pregnant woman is carrying a new human person.
The science jives with what most women feel in their hearts.

And that is precisely what proaborts don’t want and don’t like.
Because they’ve hitched women’s emancipation to the contraception and abortion wagon.

so much for neutrality. 😦
on February 15, 2010 at 8:22 PM Bethany

If you find that pro-abortion, then I would say you rely on manipulation and coercion, not facts, to sway women to follow your advice.

I think you need to take a look at my 7:20 post to see who is relying on manipulation and coercion, rather than being open with facts and evidence.
on February 15, 2010 at 8:23 PM Bethany

Mary Catherine, 8:21, I wholeheartedly agree.
on February 15, 2010 at 8:24 PM Bethany

As Bethany and Michelle have both noted, somewhat to their dismay, Serena Gaefke mixes scientific data AND arguments concerning God, spirituality, even some speculation about the soul.

I don’t mind using arguments concerning God, but I do disagree with the premise of chapter 21, as I don’t think it is Biblical.
on February 15, 2010 at 8:28 PM Bethany

What is my own thinking? The issue of homicide, murder, infanticide, the right of a person to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, arises when a complete human being is present, not when a cell, or cells, capable of growing into a human being is present.

No, you can’t truly say that because you have admitted that after 20 weeks, the unborn child is a human being, and you still advocate 3rd trimester abortions in cases of disability or disease.
on February 15, 2010 at 8:32 PM Bethany

Bethany: I wanted it to be cold and clinical. I’m looking at whether I can take the facts Serena laid out, strip away Serena’s honest and unapologetic advocacy, and present the same facts in a manner that does NOT advise a woman what to do, just lays out the facts.

Yeah right! Like you did here?

“Many who oppose abortion on principle say that adoption is preferable if you simply don’t think you can responsibly raise a child right now. That is one option to consider. However, considering the large number of children waiting for adoption, in foster homes and group homes, it might be best to assure yourself that there is a specific family committed to adopting your baby when you deliver it. You may be told that there is a long waiting list of families who want to adopt. Somehow, this long waiting list coexists with a long waiting list of children who have not been adopted. This is not a numbers game. If you believe you are already carrying a baby who deserves your support and protection, you want to be sure that your individual baby WILL have a loving home to grow up in. It is not good enough that a lot of babies find good adoptive families. Find someone who IS committed to THIS baby.”
on February 15, 2010 at 9:20 PM Bethany

Siarlys wrote:

“But the key points for me remain, metabolic independence from the mother, and presence of cognition, perhaps best measured by EEG waves, but there may be better ways to tell.”

I posted this above, but just wanted to make sure that you saw your quote and then this one together:

Individualized brainwaves recorded via electroencephalogram (e-lek’tro-en-sef’a-lo-gram), or EEG, have been reported as early as 6 weeks, 2 days.2

http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit7.php#brainwaves
on February 16, 2010 at 4:21 AM Michelle

“As Bethany and Michelle have both noted, somewhat to their dismay, Serena Gaefke mixes scientific data AND arguments concerning God, spirituality, even some speculation about the soul.”

Siarlys-

As Bethany has already noted, you have not understood our comments. I certainly am not “dismayed” that Serena chose to include spiritual elements to her writing. She is free to write however she chooses. My concerns are:

a. As a Christian, I personally disagree with the premise of reason #21, as it’s not Scripturally sound, and as Bethany has already pointed out, the idea of the aborted child’s soul being reincarnated is actually used by some to justify their abortions on a spiritual level. It’s rarely used, but I have counselled a handful of clients over the years who have embraced that idea, and it was always used to justify their abortion decision- ie “I’m not hurting my baby by aborting because my baby will come back in another body to a mother who will love it and care for it better than I can.”

b. I am always looking for creative, evidence based literature that I can share with clients making a decision about their pregnancy. However, if the literature advocates a particular spiritual viewpoint, it severely limits which clients the publication can be useful for. I have found that it doesn’t matter if the rest of the publication is written beautifully, with sensitive language and excellent, annotated research, if the client is of a different spiritual persuasion than those the arguments are based on, I risk that she may be offended by that part of the publication and thus dismiss the whole thing (and my advice along with it, since I gave it to her) even if every other piece of information she has received is valid, evidence based and consistent with her world view.

Hi Bethany! Nice to bump into you on here! :o)
on February 16, 2010 at 7:51 AM Mary Catherine

Bethany you’ve done a bang-up job here. I don’t usually have the time to post alot of info.

Thanks for repudiating the this section (which really bothered me too):

“But the key points for me remain, metabolic independence from the mother, and presence of cognition, perhaps best measured by EEG waves, but there may be better ways to tell.”

I think with the recent discovery of how the brain is actually working in so called comatose and “vegetative” patients, it’s quite evident that medical science still has a great deal to learn about the body. And yet we are making decisions as though we know it all.

Michelle
I agree with you. I think literature that is given to pregnant women should deal with facts about fetal development, financial aid, etc. etc. and not about religious beliefs.
If a client expresses some sort of Christian sentiment, that might be different, although even these days it’s hard to tell just exactly where that might lead as well.
I think most women really don’t want to abort their babies. I think they are looking for answers to some basic questions.
They need emotional, physical and financial support. They almost all need spiritual support. They have arrived at a clinic or a PCC exactly because this support is lacking in their lives – usually from the father and often from their own families.
I can’t say for sure but I’m betting many of those women who now hold “I regret my abortion” signs felt they had no where else to turn or were lied to about the abortion itself and about the humanity of their unborn baby.
on February 16, 2010 at 6:55 PM Siarlys Jenkins

Well, you’ve all proved my point very well.

Mary Catherine continues to boast about her degrees, but she doesn’t evidence what the degree programs have taught her in the way she writes here. A degree is not a license to tell everyone else “take my word for it, I’m an expert.” A degree program should, hopefully, have taught you how to make a convincing arguments, based on

a) undisputed facts, not the ones you believe nobody should be disputing, but the ones that are undisputed, and

b) data supporting facts in contention on which you have a position, leading to,

a persuasive analysis. Mary Catherine is persuasive only to those who already share both her position and her passion for that position. I’ve provided detailed explanation of why the citations Dr. Nadal has provided do not, when I read them, sustain the conclusion he believes they sustain, so it really won’t do you any good to briefly refer to the fact that he’s posted some material as if that lets you off the hook to make your own case.

Bethany had now repeated several times that I support third trimester abortion, when I’ve stated more often than that, why I don’t, unless the mother’s life is in danger. She really, really WANTS to believe that I support third trimester abortion, it just doesn’t fit her personal notion of how anyone with a pro-choice viewpoint thinks to believe that anyone could distinguish between second and third trimester, but she’s deluding herself.

I want a citation to a credible source for the claim that EEG waves begin after six weeks. I might change my position that there are a good benchmark, IF it turns out that three little bumps (as described in 101 reasons) can give off EEG without a brain present, but I’m doubtful of this claim to start with.

Michelle, I accept your clarification. It is of course perfectly legitimate to have spiritual reasons for concluding that abortion is wrong. One reason I commented on that point, as I did, is that most people at this site have been loudly proclaiming that this discussion has NOTHING to do with spiritual considerations, it is solely a matter of science. The more I hear that, and the more I see how little substance there is to that claim, the more I doubt that it is credible. As I’ve said before, I have more respect for the person who candidly says they are not arguing science, they are opposed to abortion because God said “this is mine, hands off.” It is a consistent and honest position.

There is valid data in biological advances of the last 30 years which can and should be considered. It can’t simply be written off as irrelevant. There are spiritual implications as well. There is a great deal to consider, and I have found your comments to date thoughtful and considerate. I can’t say that for everything I’ve read lately.
on February 16, 2010 at 10:31 PM Mary Catherine

“Mary Catherine continues to boast about her degrees, but she doesn’t evidence what the degree programs have taught her in the way she writes here. A degree is not a license to tell everyone else “take my word for it, I’m an expert.” A degree program should, hopefully, have taught you how to make a convincing arguments, based on…”

blah blah blah, SJ.
Wow, you sure have a problem doncha ya. honey.
First off, I never boasted and so sorry that I don’t measure up to YOUR standards. (I’m so broken up over it.)
That is, of course, YOUR problem. 😀
It would seem to me that you are quite hostile to people who have the degrees you lack. Of course, once again, that is YOUR problem. 😛

“…so it really won’t do you any good to briefly refer to the fact that he’s posted some material as if that lets you off the hook to make your own case.”

oh but sweetie, that’s just it. I don’t have to make my own case. Dr. G has made his case -it’s his blog and I see no reason to repost what other’s have already beat me to – only to have you blow me off as you did Bethany and Bobby.

I’ve read the science and based on my professional background and yes, even on my unscientific experiences as a mother, many times over, it’s reputable, plausible and accurate. In faact, it’s more than accurate – it’s the TRUTH.

Sadly for abortion advocates like yourself, biomedical science continues to provide increasingly sophisticatede scientific evidence to support our pov, that the unborn child is a human being and therefore, a person.
But I also don’t need the science, because reason leads me to the same conclusion.

ANd now of course once again, from your comments, SJ, are treated to the typical proabort attitude of setting the bar impossibly high for accepting ANY scientific evidence of the humanity of the unborn baby.

Let’s face the music, shall we: no study is going to EVER convince you of the humanity of the unborn baby. EVER.
Why is that? ( I know this question will be blown off as well as were my others.)
My guess: that you have had some part in abortion personally.

Mostly, we are all tiring of interacting with you SJ largely because of your ridiculous inability to accept any science AT ALL regarding the development of the unborn child.

Perhaps I should reiterate what Bobby wrote on another thread:
“you can have the last word. I’m done here”.

Sad thing is that you are still in the dark, my friend. 😦
on February 17, 2010 at 9:14 AM Bethany

Bethany had now repeated several times that I support third trimester abortion, when I’ve stated more often than that, why I don’t, unless the mother’s life is in danger. She really, really WANTS to believe that I support third trimester abortion, it just doesn’t fit her personal notion of how anyone with a pro-choice viewpoint thinks to believe that anyone could distinguish between second and third trimester, but she’s deluding herself.

Frankly, I am getting really sick of you saying stuff and then pretending you didn’t say it.

You have said on MULTIPLE occasions that you would not be in the least opposed to killing a baby with Down’s syndrome, or anencephaly, even in the third trimester, because you would not consider it “killing”, but simply “removing tissue”.

Then you try to backpedal and say you only advocate abortion in the third trimester in cases of life or death of the mother- that is completely false, because of what YOU have already SAID. You only say that to attempt to cover your tracks, but the tracks are still there, Siarlys! All one has to do is read your previous posts to see what you really believe- do you think that somehow we just are going to forget the other things you’ve said when you say something new? i’ve got news for you- we’re not that dumb!

I am frankly tired of your lying, and your long winded speeches which go off on rabbit trails and have little to do with anything anyone has said to you, and your attempts to divert people from the subject at hand.

I am tired of your dishonesty. For a 56 year old man, you sure do have a lot of maturing to do. Stop projecting your lies onto me. I’ve been honest with you.
on February 17, 2010 at 10:30 AM Bethany

Actually, you know what? Let’s make this easier.

Siarlys, if your wife/partner was pregnant with your baby, and at 28 weeks she discovered that she had a baby with Down’s Syndrome, or Trisomy 13, or cerebral palsy, or cystic fibrosis, would you support or be opposed to her choosing to abort this child?
on February 17, 2010 at 6:33 PM Mary Catherine

Bethany, seeing that this adolescent man, who is unbelievably a published author (doesn’t take much, I guess these days) is intellectually dishonest,…
You are spittin in the wind, honey.
I’m sure Mr. J would be able to find SOME reason as to why his 28 week-old “fetus” would be a non person… pardon me, a non-human being.

There’s gotta be SOME science for that one. 😉

Notice how Mr J hasn’t been back here since……
on February 17, 2010 at 7:44 PM Siarlys Jenkins

Sad, Mary Catherine, very sad. You could try to present facts, then develop an analysis from those facts. You could try to demonstrate what you do know. If you did a skilled job of it, and if the facts truly were there to support your position, that might even put me in my place or change my mind. Unfortunately, all you do is indulge in name-calling. You really do a dis-service to Dr. Nadal’s sincere attempt to present you as skilled and knowledgeable.

Bethany is also reducing herself to name-calling and distortion. That is even more disappointing, because for a while, far apart though we are in principle, I had a sense we were beginning to understand each other, and that Bethany genuinely wanted to understand why and how I think as I do. Just for the record, in one instance, I forgot that I had said that a baby literally born without a brain, no brain at all, the most extreme form of anancephaly, I would have no moral compunction about putting them to sleep. I did say that, and I did forget about it, and I did acknowlege that when you pointed it out. I’ve never said that about Down’s syndrome. I’ve said repeatedly that I fully support abortion in the event of a positive Trisomy-21 test during the second trimester. Further, you make such broad sweeping statements about third trimester in general as to imply that I support casual abortion one week before delivery just because a woman decided she doesn’t want the baby after all. I don’t.

But Bethany did ask a serious, direct, and legitimate question. No, 28 weeks is the outer limit set by the Supreme Court — after 28 weeks nothing in the constitution protects the pregnant woman from state intervention (unless her life is in danger), because there is recognizably and indisputably an independent life capable of existing independently of the mother. Further, after looking over my own summary of data from Serena’s book, I think the proper boundary may be more like 23 weeks.

However, I would make sure that we (my wife, and I to the extent I could be involved) got the test done much earlier, so we could make a reasonable decision whether to go forward with the pregnancy or not. The only reason not to get the test done promptly, as early as possible, would be if my wife said “No way, absolutely not, no matter what the test says, I am going to have this baby.” As I’ve said before, the ultimate decision is hers, and if she refused on that basis my advice and request that she have the test done, I would have to respect her decision. After all, I would have married her for in sickness or in health, for better or for worse, till death do us part. I would love the baby for her sake, and, once it was born, for its own sake. But if she were willing do consider it, if we could decide early enough, I would consider it more compassionate to start over instead. I am reasonably certain you don’t see how one person could entertain both attitudes I have put into this paragraph, but that is how I see it.
on February 17, 2010 at 8:47 PM Mary Catherine

“Sad, Mary Catherine, very sad. You could try to present facts, then develop an analysis from those facts. You could try to demonstrate what you do know. If you did a skilled job of it, and if the facts truly were there to support your position, that might even put me in my place or change my mind. Unfortunately, all you do is indulge in name-calling. You really do a dis-service to Dr. Nadal’s sincere attempt to present you as skilled and knowledgeable.”

Oh please, spare me the “deflection” SJ. 😛
It’s lame.

I just told you WHY I needn’t present FACTS here. I’m not going to belabor the point by re-presenting data already demonstrated and proven especially when a middle-aged man like yourself isn’t certainly open to accepting any data.
I know you have a hard time accepting this, but there it is.
Good heavens man, what’s up with you?

“I would love the baby for her sake, and, once it was born, for its own sake. But if she were willing do consider it, if we could decide early enough, I would consider it more compassionate to start over instead.”

start what over?
The pregnancy?
The baby?
What a touching way of saying you would like your wife to kill your child if it wasn’t quite physically perfect.
That is exactly what you are saying.
Not perfect. Start over.
Mr. Jenkins, Trisomy-21 is NOT a death sentence.
People with Trisomy-21 live productive, happy lives that enrich those around them.
What you must think of all those Trisomy babies who have made it to birth?

And why does having the test done “much earlier” matter?
Does killing your child earlier in the pregnancy make it somehow less wrong? And if so why?
Is your child at 4 months less human than your child at 8 months?
And if so, why?
Would you consider a child at 8months unborn the equal of a child at 3 months post birth? Or a year old? Why or why not? What makes a 4 month fetus less human than an 8 month fetus?

Can you not see how illogical your reasoning is?
on February 18, 2010 at 9:23 AM Bethany

Bethany is also reducing herself to name-calling and distortion.

If I called you a name, I missed it.

That is even more disappointing, because for a while, far apart though we are in principle, I had a sense we were beginning to understand each other, and that Bethany genuinely wanted to understand why and how I think as I do.

I’m more interested in converting you to pro-life. And I realize it may never happen, but that has been my motivation all along.

I do not have a desire to learn and understand more about the psychology behind advocating for the killing of innocent human beings.

I do wish to be instrumental in changing the hearts of those who would advocate such things.

Just for the record, in one instance, I forgot that I had said that a baby literally born without a brain, no brain at all, the most extreme form of anancephaly, I would have no moral compunction about putting them to sleep. I did say that, and I did forget about it, and I did acknowlege that when you pointed it out.

Yes, but you continue to repeat that you do not want to eliminate those with disease, and what said about killinga child with anencephaly is eliminating those with disease.

Tell me, Siarlys- what purpose does killing a baby with no brain serve?

To relieve the baby’s suffering? That can’t be it. If the baby is born without a brain, you would have to say that the baby is not suffering. And if it’s truly born without a brain, it’s going to likely die on it’s own anyway- So what purpose then does killing the baby serve? Please explain that to me.

I’ve never said that about Down’s syndrome. I’ve said repeatedly that I fully support abortion in the event of a positive Trisomy-21 test during the second trimester.

What really makes that any better than third trimester, Siarlys?
You have admitted that at 18-20 weeks, there is a human being present. A baby is in the 2nd trimester until they are 28 weeks. So you still advocate killing those that you consider human beings, even if you don’t say that it is in the third trimester.

And also, another thought. You assume that it is the level of consciousness or self awareness that makes you more human. So how much self awareness do you consider the Down’s Syndrome baby to have at 28-30 weeks? Less than a “normal” baby? At what age do you think a Down’s Syndrome baby becomes a human being?

Further, you make such broad sweeping statements about third trimester in general as to imply that I support casual abortion one week before delivery just because a woman decided she doesn’t want the baby after all. I don’t.

No, I never implied that at all. I said you advocate eliminating those with disease or disability.
That has nothing to do with the woman involved.
on February 18, 2010 at 9:34 AM Bethany

But Bethany did ask a serious, direct, and legitimate question. No, 28 weeks is the outer limit set by the Supreme Court — after 28 weeks nothing in the constitution protects the pregnant woman from state intervention (unless her life is in danger), because there is recognizably and indisputably an independent life capable of existing independently of the mother.

Women in the United States today are free to kill their unborn children all the way until the due date, for ANY reason. If it’s not legal in one state, all they have to do is go to another state to have it done.

“Health”of the woman is a loophole frequently used. And do you recall those stats I posted from the Guttmacher institute which didn’t even list life of the mother as a reason the woman was aborting? The most common reasons were “misjudged gestation”or “didn’t know timing was important”. Some of Tiller’s records showed that he aborted women in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters for such reasons as the woman “wanted to be able to fit into a prom dress” or “wanted to be able to attend a rock concert”. Sad, truly sad.

Further, after looking over my own summary of data from Serena’s book, I think the proper boundary may be more like 23 weeks.

You keep changing that number.

However, I would make sure that we (my wife, and I to the extent I could be involved) got the test done much earlier, so we could make a reasonable decision whether to go forward with the pregnancy or not.

Oh yes, that makes it so much better. @@

The only reason not to get the test done promptly, as early as possible, would be if my wife said “No way, absolutely not, no matter what the test says, I am going to have this baby.” As I’ve said before, the ultimate decision is hers, and if she refused on that basis my advice and request that she have the test done, I would have to respect her decision.

“have to”

After all, I would have married her for in sickness or in health, for better or for worse, till death do us part. I would love the baby for her sake, and, once it was born, for its own sake. But if she were willing do consider it, if we could decide early enough, I would consider it more compassionate to start over instead. I am reasonably certain you don’t see how one person could entertain both attitudes I have put into this paragraph, but that is how I see it.

No, it makes perfect sense. If you wouldn’t love a child with a disability inside of the womb, why would you love it outside of the womb, once it’s born?
If you’re only “loving the child for your wife’s sake”, then you’re not truly loving the child at all. I pity the child who has to live with a parent who only pretends to care about him/her for his other parent’s sake.
on February 18, 2010 at 7:03 PM Siarlys Jenkins

Bethany, that’s an honest statement: you want to win me over to a pro-life position. Fair enough. My position is, if I have to run away from what you have to say, in order to remain pro-choice, then I have no basis to be pro-choice at all. I should be able to consider any and all facts, and the perspective any other person has to offer about how those facts should be understood. I might then satisfy myself that I don’t need to change, or I might conclude that I do, but I shouldn’t stop my ears and say “Don’t tell me that.” I have no doubt that you sincerely believe everything you’ve said.

Serena said, quite reasonably, that if a woman can read her entire book, and still decide abortion is the right decision to make, it truly is her choice. That’s how it should be. I know Serena expects to change a lot of minds, and she has every right to try.

The last time you posted a list of states which allegedly allowed third trimester abortions, I looked a few up, and found that this was simply not true. I do know that Roe v. Wade leaves third trimester up to the states. I’ve read the decision thoroughly. So, if it were true that no state had prohibited third trimester abortion, then you would really be wasting your time trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. Apparently no state legislature in the USA is willing to pass any law regarding abortion at all. But the truth is, every state has outlawed third trimester abortion, except in case of danger to the life or health of the mother.

It may well be true that in practice, many doctors willing to perform abortions get away with third trimester abortions when the mother’s life is not in danger. I would really want to see pdf scans of the notes from Dr. Tiller’s records you refer to. Some “facts” are awfully easy to make up and pass around — the internet is a giant game of telephone. You may well believe it, but it could be 20th hand or 436th hand by the time you saw it. Still, I believe there is some abuse, and I would support a careful effort to insist that there be a credible diagnosis of a known medical condition which does threaten the mother’s health, properly documented.

For the rest, we are only going over the same ground. You consider a zygote a baby, I don’t recognize a baby until there is a self-aware organism, with its essential organs in place and operating, metabolically independent of the mother. That makes all the difference in the world between us. I’m open to study of exactly when that line should reasonably be drawn. I note of course that the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester, most of the remaining small fraction in the second trimester, and a very very tiny percentage, if I remember right it is well under one percent, during third trimester.
on February 18, 2010 at 7:53 PM Bethany

From abortionfacts.com:

On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all laws in every state that in any way had protected the lives of developing unborn children. It legalized abortion in all 50 states, for the full nine months of pregnancy, for social and economic reasons.

It created a new, basic constitutional right for women in the right to privacy which the Supreme Court had created only a few years earlier. That right to privacy was “broad enough to encompass a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.”

It stated that the law protects only “legal persons” and that “legal personhood does not exist prenatally.”

It authorized no legal restrictions on abortion in the first three months.

No restrictions from then until viability except those needed to make the procedure safer for the mother.

Abortion was allowed until birth if one licensed physician judged it necessary for the mother’s “health.”

Roe vs. Wade, U.S. Supreme Court 410 U.S. 113, 1973

Doe vs. Bolton, U.S. Supreme Court 410 U.S. 179, 1973

How did this decision define “health?”

The Court said that abortion could be performed: “. . . in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.” Doe vs. Bolton, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 70-40, IV, p. 11, Jan. 1973

“Maternity or additional offspring may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by childcare. There is also the distress for all concerned associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically or otherwise, to care for it. In other cases the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors that the woman and the responsible physician will consider in consultation.” Roe vs. Wade, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 70-18, p. 38, Jan. 1973

But these reasons are social reasons, not health reasons.

That is the situation! The U.S. Supreme Court has specifically defined the word “health” to include a broad group of social and economic problems, as judged by the mother herself. It has further specifically forbidden any state to forbid abortion at any time prior to birth for these reasons, if the mother can find a doctor to do the abortion.

This is also true in every nation in the world. If abortion is allowed for “health,” that state or nation has abortion on demand; e.g., in England in 1986, 132,000 of 135,000 legal abortions were due to mental health. The Times, 26 March ’88

Then the Supreme Court allowed abortion-on-demand until birth?

Yes.

Can you prove this?

The official report of the U.S. Senate Judiciary

Committee, issued after extensive hearings on the Human Life Federalism Amendment (proposed by Senators Hatch and Eagleton), concluded:

“Thus, the [Judiciary] Committee observes that no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy.” Report, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, on Senate Joint Resolution 3, 98th Congress, 98-149, June 7, 1983, p. 6

“Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted on by our people nor enacted by our legislators.” R. Reagan, Abortion & the Conscience of the Nation, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984, p.

Since that time there have been numerous instances where third trimester (last three months) abortions have been performed with no adverse legal consequences. Ever since 1973, many had denied that late term elective abortions were legal and/or did not exist. This was totally debunked during the 1996 debate in the U.S. Congress on partial birth abortions, when it was conclusively shown that such abortions were done even late in the third trimester.
on February 18, 2010 at 9:22 PM Mary Catherine

“I don’t recognize a baby until there is a self-aware organism, with its essential organs in place and operating, metabolically independent of the mother. That makes all the difference in the world between us. I’m open to study of exactly when that line should reasonably be drawn.”

I see how it goes with you: a human being has no intrinsic value.
A human becomes a person when science can define it as such.

So what does your wife say to you when she finds out she is pregnant, seeing as you don’t recognize that she is pregnant with a baby? 😦

What about conjoined twins who share a single heart? Or a single liver? Or a brain?
Is one of these children not a human being? Is the child with the heart the only human person while the other child is expendable? Are we free to do whatever we wish with that child?

Who wants to live in such a world, SJ?

And what happens to people when they lose one of your dearly determined scientific “criteria” for human personhood, later on in life? 😦
on February 19, 2010 at 8:55 AM Michelle

Hi again Siarlys-

Thanks for hanging in there with this long discussion in “enemy territory.” I appreciate your thoughts and especially your honesty when you find your ideas being impacted by the discussion.

I daily seek to engage and assist women and couples who are considering abortion, and so as long as we can all keep cool heads, there is a lot to be learned from each other.

I am happy to admit that my views on the sanctity of life are based in both spiritual beliefs and scientific evidence.

I believe that we are logical, emotional and spiritual beings. I do not believe that the three faces of our humanity are mutually exclusive, rather, each reinforces the other. and when used together, they are mutually beneficial.

As a logical being, I am pro-life. I believe that science clearly proves that human life begins at fertilisation and thus abortion takes a human life. I am also firmly convinced through scientific proofs and real-life experiences that abortion is an unnatural, invasive act that interrupts a normal process of the female body, and thus causes physical damage. It does not make sense to me that women need a medical procedure to be equal to men- we are equal just the way we are. I also cannot logically argue that one person’s temporary autonomy (a woman while pregnant) should be judged to be more valuable than another person’s entire autonomy (the baby’s life) especially when in almost all cases, the woman was willing to risk her autonomy by engaging in the act that created the child in the first place.

As an emotional being, I am pro-life. In my work, I see first hand the devastating results that abortion yields in the psychological health of women, men and peers. Abortion hurts. And hurts. And hurts- women, men, siblings, grandparents, friends, all of us. And the destruction of innocent children breaks my heart, over and over again.

As a spiritual being, I am pro-life. I believe God is the creator of life and that Scripture clear that death is not desired, or ever a friend, but an enemy to be detested and conquered. Life is a gift, to be treasured, nurtured and protected. My Christianity also teaches me to love my neighbour as myself. It is the difference between knowing what is right or wrong, and being willing to do something about it.

Frankly, one or the other of those reasons would be adequate for me to have some qualms about abortion, but together, they mean I embrace a compassionate, evidence-based, practical approach to helping women experiencing undesired pregnancies. I haven’t always been this way- it has been a long journey of many thoughts, tears and prayers.

However, when I meet women and couples considering abortion, time is of the essence. There is tremendous pressure, some internal, some external, some natural and some purposeful, for her to make a quick decision. I search first for common ground, and more often than not, we find it first in the logic or emotional aspects of the decision. Most people are either offended by or disinterested in a discussion about their spiritual beliefs.

Thus, my original statement. I am hungry for pro-life resources that are sensitively and creatively presented while evidence-based, but not overtly spiritual. I have some great resources already at my disposal that explain a Biblically based position on abortion, and I use them when appropriate. People like Dr Nadal are a breath of fresh air as they bring science back into our corner. Embryology, ultrasound technology, peer-reviewed research and decades of abortion on demand have revealed what the pro-life movement has been saying all along- that life begins at fertilization, that mother and child are deeply connected, and that abortion hurts everyone from the child and his mother right through to our culture and society. The answer does not lie in destroying children and harming women, but in loving everyone else as we love ourselves.
on February 19, 2010 at 1:49 PM Mary Catherine

an absolutely beautiful comment Michelle.

I have done sidewalk counseling outside abortion clinics.
I’ve found that each woman is unique and it’s important to try to figure out where each one is at the moment I meet them.

Mostly, I have seen women who are completely overwhelmed by their circumstances.
In a nonjudgmental way, I say, that I believe this comes from the contraceptive mentality that exists in our culture.
Previously, couples engaging in sex outside of marriage, knew there was a possibility of pregnancy. They took a risk and that was for the most part factored into their behaviour and their decisions.
The BC pill has removed all of that.
The expectation is one of no baby and to my mind, this is why many women are truly left “hgh and dry” when they unexpectedly become pregnant. And many women do become pregnant while on the pill.
The end result is that while previously, if a woman became pregnant the couple likely married, now the woman is often left with few options:
-face the pregnancy alone
-have an abortion

The latter choice is the expected choice. After all, a baby ruins one’s life. Or so they say.

Marriage or staying together often isn’t in the cards, especially in the mind of the man.

I have always found that science – cold hard facts are the ones that help women the most. Served with heaping helpings of empathy, love and compassion lead most women not to abort.

I also believe that men like Siarlys Jenkins have a hard time understanding that there are other factors that work in favor of the baby.
That baby is a new human life. Most women intuitively KNOW this even when they first find out they are pregnant. So know it even before the pregnancy test. It’s not a “feeling”. It’s not a “rational thought”.
It goes much deeper than that. I believe that sometimes it is the cold hard “facts” that bring this back out in the mother who is considering abortion.
on February 19, 2010 at 10:47 PM Siarlys Jenkins

I haven’t read the lates repartees yet, but zipping down the freeway this morning, I concluded that we need to stop running around the mulberry bush, trading the same old comments, covering the same ground, and take stock of where this discussion is really at. (I will read all the latest comments, but if I respond, I will take another day or so to do that).

As a quick aside, I just ran across a fantastic commentary on power elites and meritocracy by one of my favorite conservatives, David Brooks. His overview might put some of our side disputes into perspective too. It is available here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19brooks.html

I started thinking, what is the most powerful and effective pro-life argument I’ve encountered at Gerard’s site? What made the most sense to me, as a committed pro-choice American? I would summarize it this way: From the time a zygote forms, there is a discernibly continuous epistemology which, if it is not interrupted, is not broken until death from old age.

Next declension, why and how do I not follow this argument to its logical conclusion?

First, why would I be motivated to even try?

Whenever possible, I think it is good for people to be able to have second thoughts, to reconsider, to evaluate, am I on the right course, have I made the best choices, and do the preliminary results provide a sound basis for going full speed ahead as planned? When it comes to pregnancy of course, there are, at the very least, some unavoidable limits, there is a point of no return. We’ve hashed over what some of the reasons for saying, no, I’m not going down that road, might be. I won’t detail them all here. We’ve argued over them before, and will undoubtedly again.

Whatever those reasons might be, there remains the question, is there any sound basis to break up the continuity of this development from zygote to aged, wrinkled corpse?

If we simply put a zygote and a baby side by side, I would say it is a slam dunk. One is a single cell, the other is billions of cells. One has organelles, the other has organs. One operates unconsciously according to a chemical program, not much different in principle from am amoeba or a paramecium, the other can not only manipulate its environment according to original thought and planning, but can even contemplate the nature of the Creator of the universe.

The reason I even entertain that there is a controversy is, because there is no sudden transformation, where in five minutes or five seconds, a zygote becomes a baby.

Instead, there is a long, continuous series of subtle changes. One cell becomes two, two become four, four become eight… at some point, we have a subtle qualitative shift from a bunch of cells to a blastocyst, in which the cells begin to specialize. If all goes well, the blastocyst moves from a sphere to at least two specialized divisions, a placenta and an embryo. That, again, is a qualitative transformation, but at exactly what moment did the blastocyst cease to be, and the placenta and embryo came into existence?

The embryo, at a very early stage, has the topology of a baby, if not the complete content. Then it grows gradually larger, and the content is gradually filled in until everything is in place.

There are many ways in which the development from zygote to baby are uniquely separable from all the rest of human development. I could very crudely compare it to driving a standard transmission car, like mine. Pregnancy is first gear: the essential transition from no motion at all to in motion. After that, its just a matter of shifting to higher gears and picking up speed. But while the car is in first gear, its not too late to apply the brakes and decided its not a good day to drive.

Going from one cell to billions is a far different matter than adding a few hundred million more. Going from one-celled life, or undifferentiated cells, to a complex set of multi-celled specialized organs, is far different from adding one more organ to a functioning organism, e.g. puberty, or enlarging the size of organs that are already fully functional.

Further, for this limited time only, the fetus is growing inside the body of another. Once born, no person can ever creep back inside the womb. But for most of the nine months of pregnancy, it is at least in part a part of the woman’s body in which it grows. It must implant in her uterine wall to grow. It must make connections to her bloodstream. She must eat for the fetus as well as for herself. It would die if removed. That is a qualitatively different matter than lying helplessly on a bed, breathing for itself. Romulus and Remus, abandoned and exposed with intent to kill them, could be suckled and protected by a wolf. Not so while still in their mother’s womb.

The arrogance of ORDERING a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, inside herself, does bother me. As I’ve said, as more of the nine months of pregnancy pass, and the more developed the new life within her becomes, the less that bothers me. If she’s carried it for seven months, two more is not much to ask, whereas what she carries is almost ready to come out on its own.

It particularly bothers me that some would DECREE that she must carry the fruit of a rape inside her for nine months. I’ve heard that some women find fulfillment and overcome the trauma of rape by coming to love the life growing inside them. I believe that happens, and it is good when it does. But some women want nothing so much as to get every trace of the rape out of them — how dare anyone else try to COMPEL them to carry it for nine long agonizing months?

For three months, or five months, at the most six, there is not yet a baby. The last time I would say “oh, its just a mass of tissue” is when there are three layers of cells. That is a lot earlier than most people are talking about. But certainly, up to that point, that is a true statment: its not a baby, it is a mass of tissue. The next phase is a hollow flask, ready to be filled, but its still not a baby. But as it fills in, it surely becomes one.
on February 19, 2010 at 11:09 PM Mary Catherine

“For three months, or five months, at the most six, there is not yet a baby. ”

“But certainly, up to that point, that is a true statment: its not a baby, it is a mass of tissue. The next phase is a hollow flask, ready to be filled, but its still not a baby. But as it fills in, it surely becomes one.”

ya know, just when I starting to think there might be some hope, I now think you are a very smart man who is incredibly stupid about a lot of things.
I have felt my baby KICK at 5 months.
You’re right. A mass of tissue KICKED me in my womb.

you have my condolences….. 😦
on February 19, 2010 at 11:30 PM Mary Catherine

oh yeah, I forgot to tell you that all those pictures of 3 month, 5 month and 6 month fetuses are FAKED.

They are just masses of tissue MOLDED to look like beginner babies…….

what I see is willful ignorance that borders on sinful.
on February 20, 2010 at 9:17 AM Siarlys Jenkins

Michelle, you are able to speak to me in the manner that Mary Catherine speaks to women outside clinics which offer abortion services. I have never seen Mary Catherine in action, but I take her word for it, because nobody would know better – only the women she speaks to would be in any position to suggest that she comes across differently than she believes. I don’t consider this “enemy territory.” My point in being here is that this is an unfit subject for competition between political factions, that the genuine convictions on all sides of this issue (there are certainly more than two, perhaps as many as five or more) are cheapened by the usual requirements of political propaganda.

We are not creatures from different planets. We are each other’s neighbors, co-workers, and even co-parishioners. (I belong to a church where many people consider themselves pro-life, although it is not an unambiguous position in church doctrine, and frequently visit another church which is fervently pro-life in official pronouncements). I also appreciate that Bethany wants to convert me to a pro-life position. I am not anxious to be converted, since I see a lot of good in the perspective I presently have, but there is a deep kind of respect in thinking that someone is worth the effort of trying to convert.

I would have said that we have both animal and spiritual components, much as C.S. Lewis writes in The Screwtape Letters, and as such, we have both logical and emotional capacities, which partake of both components, and which have both beneficial and harmful potential. We’re not far apart on that. I’ve just posted my thoughts on the epistemology from conception to death, so I won’t repeat it here, but I’ve found that in this discussion, we all seem to move from one term to another in response to each other’s use of terms. I point out that life begins long before conception, and someone points out that a unique new genetic combination is formed at conception, which is of course true. I question whether a unique set of genes is sufficient to say that a human being exists, and Bethany makes a point about personhood. Biological life is a numbers game, in which no individual cell, or individual organism, is of any particular importance. Human life is something quite different; in spite of all the forms of political domination, torture, social and economic status and exploitation, and outright enslavement, which have characterized most of human history (not excluding the presumed righteousness of slaughtering heretics and infidels), we as a species, as individuals, and as a culture have struggled toward the understanding that each individual life is precious for its own sake.

Conception results from a numbers game. Most of the ova a woman’s body produces are flushed out of her body without the unique set of 23 chromosomes they contain ever finding partners to form 23 pairs. Millions of sperm die with every instance of sexual intercourse. A fair number of newly joined zygotes miss the uterine wall and are never embedded at all. At what point does the biological numbers game end, and does the life that is individually precious begin? We differ by a few months as to when, and why, and how.

One point I’ve lost track of in the daily give and take of this debate is my reasons for separating the legal framework on abortion from the validity of this or that reason for abortion. I’ve said before that the day may come when the Roman Catholic Church, Focus on the Family, the Rutherford Foundation, the Liberty Lobby, and the Pacific Legal Foundation, will have cause to thank God for Roe v. Wade. Think about what would happen if a government were elected which was committed to a vast program of social engineering. What if that included laws MANDATING abortion in certain circumstances. We all know what the rationales would be: the mother isn’t competent, the baby would be a burden to society, no parent has a right to bring such a damaged baby into the world…

All the above named institutions would be rushing into court for injunctions against enforcement of such laws. They would be right to do so. Lawyers know to grasp at any precedent which will achieve the result their client desires. There would be no stronger or more effective precedent than Roe v. Wade.

There appear to be some in the NARAL and Planned Parenthood orbit who think there is a constitutional right to abortion. There is not. There is a right to be left alone. It is a limitation on the exercise of the police powers of the state. That is a sword that cuts both ways. The government has no more power to compel than it does to forbid. In fact, the only reason the government has any power to forbid or regulate, late in pregnancy, is limited to its growing interest in protecting the increasingly developed and increasingly independent life within the mother. So, the only attenuated power the state retains is moot as far as any mandate to abort is concerned.

Short of such a doomsday scenario, I think choice is the proper LEGAL standard, without prejudice to what is the right choice for a woman to make. There are parents who feel it would be cruel and selfish to abort a badly damaged fetus. There are parents who feel it would be cruel and selfish NOT to abort a badly damaged fetus, and start over. Why should the police power of the state put either of those sets of parents through the anguish of a decision they will strenuously oppose? Perhaps if each set of parents recieved a direct visitation from God, assuring them of what is the right choice, and letting them know it will work out well for them, we wouldn’t have to worry. But the state is not God, and neither is a voting majority.

Leave the legal framework in place, as we have it. Then, let those with pro-life convictions put ALL their energy into what they do best: reach out, one on one, to individual pregnant women who are each making a profound individual decision. Offer them whatever they need, and let each pregnant woman in turn evaluate, observing whether she has seen promises kept, not just for nine months, but for eighteen years. I probably won’t be out imploring women who consider abortion to carry their pregnancy to term. But, for those who do, you can call me to help with the teams providing babysitting so mama doesn’t have to do it all alone, or so she can attend classes and get her nursing degree. Right now I’m taking one child out a few times a week – its not much, but its been good for him. Nobody had to implore his mother not to abort her babies; she would never even think of it, even if she had known that two fathers would provide no child support, and the third would quit his job and then cut it way back because “its not fair to me.” I’ve been matched with her oldest son for three years.

Dr. Nadal has offered some excellent presentation on basic science, and I have so noted several times. However, the more he tries to line up the facts “in the service of the pro-life movement” the more he undermines his own effectiveness AS a scientist. Facts don’t change according to convenience for one side of the other of a political debate. Committed partisans don’t abandon their convictions just because some facts prove to be inconvenient. Partisans always stretch the significance of available facts beyond what is really there. Although Dr. Nadal has expressed a marked distaste for Dr. Gould’s cheerfully admitted arrogance, I believe Dr. Gould had a valid point, for himself and all others who endeavor to be scientists, when he expressed “that a factual reality exists and that science, though often in an obtuse and erratic manner can learn about it… Yet the history of many scientific subjects is virtually free from such constraints of fact… The history of scientific views on race, for example, serves as a mirror of social movements… many questions are formulated by scientists in such a restricted way that any legitimate answer can only validate a social preference… Scientists can struggle to identify the cultural assumptions of their trade and to ask how answers might be formulated under different assertions. Scientists can propose creative theories that force startled colleagues to confront unquestioned procedures. But science’s potential as an instrument for identifying the cultural constraints upon it cannot be fully realized until scientists give up the twin myths of objectivity and inexorable march toward truth.” Nobody who makes the bald claim “Its a scientific fact that I’m right” has honestly faced the impact that their own social and personal context has on the way each of us frame questions to be answered, and interpret the answers we find. It is not bad that we each have biases in our thinking. It is misleading to mistake our own biases for The Truth, and to overlook the impact that our respective biases have on our own conclusions.
on February 20, 2010 at 12:18 PM Mary Catherine

“Dr. Nadal has offered some excellent presentation on basic science, and I have so noted several times. However, the more he tries to line up the facts “in the service of the pro-life movement” the more he undermines his own effectiveness AS a scientist.”

your position is a perpetration of the myth that a prolife scientist is not a legitimate scientist.
It’s right up there with the belief that no self-respecting scientist could EVER believe in God.

the fact is that science entirely and completely supports the prolife position.
There is no scientific evidence for support of abortion.
And in fact, it is scientific research, properly done which supports the position that not only is a living human being destroyed in abortion, but that the very abortion procedure itself is harmful to women and against her feminine nature. And nature is very unforgiving.

“Facts don’t change according to convenience for one side of the other of a political debate. Committed partisans don’t abandon their convictions just because some facts prove to be inconvenient.”

First off, facts are facts. They either support one side or they don’t. Facts are not biased. They simply are facts.
3X4 = 12 is a mathematical fact.
It is unbiased.
It supports the position of those who believe 3X4 =12.
It does not support the view of those who believe 3X4=10.

And yes, people do change their views because of facts. I’ve personally seen it first hand.
If a young woman is told that her 3 month old unborn baby is a blob of cells and she finds out that in fact, it is not, that makes a difference to her. She no longer views her baby as a piece of tissue (geez, where did I see that pov recently?) but begins to see her baby as he/she really is – a living human being dependent at this time in it’s life on HER.

The reason facts do not make much difference to die-hard proaborts is because firstly, their position is not a reason-able one.
Secondly, they are not interested in facts, they are interested in a social agenda.
That social agenda is to free women from what they see as the slavery of their biology.
Except in pushing for contraception and abortion, they have not only enslaved women further but these people have encouraged men to be predators instead of protectors.
A man who favors abortion is a predator. He protects neither his child nor the mother of his child. 😦
on February 20, 2010 at 12:25 PM Mary Catherine

“the fact is that science entirely and completely supports the prolife position.
There is no scientific evidence for support of abortion.
And in fact, it is scientific research, properly done which supports the position that not only is a living human being destroyed in abortion, but that the very abortion procedure itself is harmful to women and against her feminine nature. And nature is very unforgiving.”

I might also add, that this is precisely WHY the proabortion movement is so afraid of facts. Especially the facts of the development of the unborn baby.
A good example is ultrasound.
An ultrasound cannot lie.
It shows the unborn baby as it really is. With a head, arms that move, legs that KICK, swallowing and sucking motions, even attempts to get away from the cannula.
And if a woman has the luck to get a 3D ultrasound she really gets all the goods! She can really see the facial features of her baby – it’s not a blob after all!

Although proaborts claim that ultrasounds are unfair pressure on women, what they really mean is that they show the baby to his/her mother.
Proaborts don’t want a woman to see her baby as he/she is.
They want a woman to make a serious life and death decision without all those facts. They want them to forget about the baby and think about themselves.
One problem though: mothers rarely forget their children.
All abortion does is make them the mother of a dead baby.
Bottom line: facts don’t support abortion they support every reason why that unborn baby has the right to live, even if it is a result of rape.
on February 20, 2010 at 12:36 PM Siarlys Jenkins

This is specifically a reply to Bethany regarding the content and impact of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. I may respond to other comments separately, but I find it better to be thorough on major points, rather than simply engage in a verbal duel on each sentence anyone posts. Also, I’m taking up a lot of space as it is, and this isn’t my site.

When discussing a decision by the United States Supreme Court, it is always best to read the original decision. When I refer to a Supreme Court case on any subject at a site where I am a contributor, I always embed a link to the full decision at least once. I think I can, within the rules Gerard has established, offer this link, since I don’t expect to need any others:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/410/113/case.html

If you look for it in a law library, 410 means the 410th volume of United States Reports. It starts on page 113 of that volume. I have zero confidence in either the mainstream media or the diverse array of interested advocacy groups to “interpret” the meaning and effect of a decision for me.

The first thing to note about Doe v. Bolton is that the court ruled the Does had no standing to sue. Their complaint was ruled to be “not justiciable.” Only Roe had standing to sue, and any ruling at all disposed only of Roe’s suit. Any web site purporting to “explain” these cases, which says, in effect ‘In Roe the court ruled that…’ and ‘In Doe the court further ruled that…’ has been prepared by someone who is either terribly confused, or deliberately distorting the truth, if they know what it is.

In the court’s summary of its holdings in Roe, point three is most relevant to the understanding Bethany has posted.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health AND THE POTENTIALITY OF HUMAN LIFE, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term. Pp. 410 U. S. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. Pp. 410 U. S. 163, 410 U. S. 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 410 U. S. 163, 410 U. S. 164.

(c) For the stage SUBSEQUENT TO VIABILITY the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, AND EVEN PROSCRIBE, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 410 U. S. 163-164; 410 U. S. 164-165.

The full text contains a very thorough review of legal and cultural response to abortion dating to several centuries BC in Persian, Greek, Roman and other cultures, and the adoption of laws prohibiting abortion by most states in the late 19th century. It also thoroughly covers precedent pertaining to a constitutional right to privacy, dating to 1891, and including cases from 1928, 1923, 1942, as well as several more familiar ones from the 1960s.

On page 154, Justice Blackmun’s opinion says “We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation,” and on page 155 “that, at some point, the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant.”

The court did, of course, deal with personhood, because the rights protected by the constitution from government interference are rights of “persons.” That is the language the constitution uses. “The appellee [that would be the State of Texas, defending its laws] and certain amici argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant [Jane Roe] conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (pages 156-157). “All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” (page 158).

But the key point at issue in Bethany’s last citation is addressed beginning on page 159: “it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that, at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman’s privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.” And at pages 163-164, the court unambiguously ruled that “With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

Proscribe means ban, prohibit, outlaw, impose criminal penalties. There is no question in the plain language of Roe v. Wade that a state may prohibit abortion after the point of viability. Viability as understood at that time was approximately the point of quickening, not live birth or delivery. In practice it corresponded roughly to the BEGINNING of the third trimester.

It is entirely possible, even probable, that state laws prohibiting abortion post-viability have been laxly enforced, even that those who do not want them enforced have intimidated states by the threat of expensive litigation into winking at legally unsupportable third trimester abortions. Within the legal framework of Roe v. Wade, there is plenty of room to argue:

1) That medical knowledge in the last 37 years has clarified objective knowledge of “quickening,” and of exactly when the state’s interest in protecting potential life in the womb becomes “compelling.”

2) That state laws fully harmonious with the court’s ruling have been laxly enforced, resulting in destruction of “quickened” fetuses that the state may constitutionally intervene to protect, and which by law the state has in fact legislated to protect.
on February 20, 2010 at 2:59 PM Mary Catherine

“I may respond to other comments separately, but I find it better to be thorough on major points, rather than simply engage in a verbal duel on each sentence anyone posts.”

of course. 😉

you can’t be responsible for EVERYTHING you post, can you SJ?

except that these are important points for which you have no response to…
but I quite understand.
AFter all, believing that a “baby” is just a “hollow flask” to be filled in really doesn’t require all that much explaining…
on February 20, 2010 at 3:44 PM Mary Catherine

“1) That medical knowledge in the last 37 years has clarified objective knowledge of “quickening,” and of exactly when the state’s interest in protecting potential life in the womb becomes “compelling.””

quickening isn’t even relavent to the prolife discussion anymore SJ.
For Pete’s sakes, wake up. We live in the 21st century and people don’t talk about quickening…
It’s a very imprecise term used by medieval people.

we are way beyond using an outdated and meaningless term like quickening to make laws….
on February 21, 2010 at 8:22 AM Bethany

I agree, Mary Catherine. Sometimes I feel that it’s as if Siarlys was Rip Van Winkle, just awakened from another century, and seems to think his arguments using old outdated science are still relevant today.

Siarlys, as for your argument about Doe vs Bolton, you can close your ears all you want and pretend it’s not so, but the fact is that women LEGALLY obtain 3rd trimesters in the USA today all of the time, and it has been documented as I have shown you.
on February 21, 2010 at 10:25 AM Mary Catherine

not only do women in the US legally obtain 3rd trimester abortions but Canada sends almost all it’s women to the US for these “procedures”.
on February 21, 2010 at 10:53 AM Mary Catherine

just so that you can’t stick to you “baby is a hollow vessel” ideas from the pagan era you might try these videos SJ:

http://www.ehd.org/movies.php

http://www.ehd.org/movies-index.php

enjoy!
on February 21, 2010 at 11:04 AM Gerard M. Nadal

MC,

For archival purposes, can you point me to some source on the third trimester abortion referrals from Canada?

Thanks,

Gerry
on February 21, 2010 at 5:17 PM Siarlys Jenkins

Bethany, I’ve just given you a detailed view of what the letter of constitutional law currently is, and a link where you can read it verbatim for yourself. If you prefer to take the word of a commercial web site playing the great internet game of telephone, that’s on you. Whether the law is being effectively enforced or not, what is on the books is what it is.

I’ve also provided you with what could be a very effective line of attack to close down third trimester abortions that are in fact illegal, but not being effectively stopped. Perhaps you should take the time to think about it, rather than repeating the same mantra like a broken record. Sometimes I get the impression you’d rather feel modestly martyred than actually make some progress at reducing the number of abortions.
on February 21, 2010 at 7:40 PM Mary Catherine

“2) That state laws fully harmonious with the court’s ruling have been laxly enforced, resulting in destruction of “quickened” fetuses that the state may constitutionally intervene to protect, and which by law the state has in fact legislated to protect.”

we can’t even get the state to prosecute abortionists who KILL women.
we can’t get the state to shut down abortion clinics that are dirty and dangerous.
Do you honestly think the state is going to intervene to protect a “quickened fetus”? What ever the heck that is going to mean?
Who will decide on what defines a “quickened fetus”?
I can already hear the laughter in the legislatures across North America.
really SJ, can’t you see how silly your position is?
on February 21, 2010 at 8:18 PM Bethany

Sometimes I get the impression you’d rather feel modestly martyred than actually make some progress at reducing the number of abortions.

You don’t get it, do you? I don’t want to merely “reduce” abortions! I want them to be illegal. SOME babies being killed is not more palatable to me than MORE babies being killed. Every single baby that is killed is a tragedy!
on February 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM Siarlys Jenkins

Mary Catherine, if there is not one state in the whole nation willing to prosecute violations of law regarding the practice of abortion, why are you wasting your energy trying to overturn Roe v. Wade? ALL that Roe v. Wade does is RESTRAIN state enforcement of abortion laws during the first and second trimesters. If no state will enforce abortion laws at all, then overturning Roe would have no impact whatsoever. The only motivation for overturning Roe is that states would then be free to enforce their own laws — many of which do, or would, prohibit far more abortions than they are allowed to do at present.

However, I doubt very much that your statement is well informed and accurate. It is quite possible that in large parts of California and New York, even the laws still on the books go unenforced. But that this is the case in Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, among others, is beyond belief.

As to the definition of quickened, this is indeed a matter worthy of serious rethinking. In 1973, there was a common medical understanding that at some point in pregnancy, the fetus “quickened,” or began to move after a period of being still. For many centuries, this was considered the time when the fetus became distinctly “alive.” Study in the last thirty-five years has made that notion obsolete. I would estimate that the proper point for the state interest in the independent existence of the fetus to become “compelling,” as the Supreme Court says, should be pushed back to week 23 rather than 28. You might make a viable case for it to be pushed back even earlier.

Bethany, I’m a little shocked by the “all or nothing” attitude you express. Is not each individual life infinitely precious? Would one abortion prevented not be 100% to the mother and child concerned? You conclude that “every single baby killed is a tragedy.” Are you really willing to pass up opportunities to save one life, or one hundred, because it is not the full hundred thousand or more you have set your sights on? Seriously, I don’t believe that is how you feel or how you think, but your choice of words is unfortunate.
on February 22, 2010 at 2:13 PM Bethany

Bethany, I’m a little shocked by the “all or nothing” attitude you express. Is not each individual life infinitely precious? Would one abortion prevented not be 100% to the mother and child concerned? You conclude that “every single baby killed is a tragedy.” Are you really willing to pass up opportunities to save one life, or one hundred, because it is not the full hundred thousand or more you have set your sights on? Seriously, I don’t believe that is how you feel or how you think, but your choice of words is unfortunate.

Oh good grief, Siarlys.

Yes, of course each life is infinitely precious. That’s what I just finished expressing to you.
Yes, each life that is saved is 100 percent to the mother and child concerned. But each life NOT saved is still a tragedy, and my ultimate goal is not to sit around and be satisfied while thousands of babies are being killed in the name of “choice” every day. I will work for the rest of my life to do what I can to protect whatever babies I can until there is legal protection for them ALL.
on February 23, 2010 at 6:57 AM Mary Catherine

“For many centuries, this was considered the time when the fetus became distinctly “alive.” Study in the last thirty-five years has made that notion obsolete. I would estimate that the proper point for the state interest in the independent existence of the fetus to become “compelling,” as the Supreme Court says, should be pushed back to week 23 rather than 28. You might make a viable case for it to be pushed back even earlier.”

So a baby isn’t a person until it is capable of “independent existence”. What does this mean?
Might we change the definition of “independent existence” to the point that we legalize euthanasia of bed-ridden, tube fed, comatose patients?
Would you be in favour of that?

Do you honestly believe that at 23 weeks a baby suddenly becomes “alive”?
Scientifically, this isn’t valid and you know it.
Morally, it is unconscionable.
The unborn baby is a living, human being, already undertaking it’s own development.

Your view is that of a bigot, pure and simple.
Bigoted because it assigns humanity based on location, development, age and ability. All these a false constraints that you have made up and they are open to interpretation by anyone.
If I did this in the workplace, I’d be jailed.
on February 23, 2010 at 7:30 AM Bethany

Mary Catherine, I couldn’t agree more with your last post.

And the idea of “quickening” is SO arbitrary (and SO OUTDATED)…I cannot believe that anyone would try to use that as some kind of scientific idea at all.

Incidentally, I felt my baby’s “quickening” at 14 weeks, yet I know that despite this, Siarlys would not have considered my baby a person at 14 weeks. He’d change his argument then to the brain activity levels, insisting that “quickening” didn’t matter unless a fully developed brain was present.

And we know today that quickening is only the time when we start FEELING the baby’s kicks- not when the baby actually STARTS kicking. They start kicking WAY before we can feel it.

Siarly’s arguments and standards for devaluing people change based on what he wants it to be at the time. He has no true scientific standard.
on February 23, 2010 at 11:29 AM Mary Catherine

welll even using the term quickening would be absolutely ridiculous
first off, no self-respecting physician or obstetrician would EVER use this term today.
He would be laughed out of the conference room.

Secondly, I can’t imagine a more medieval term that would set every proabort against any attempt to “reduce” abortions ( another ridiculous notion at any rate) using this criteria.
Can you imagine the comparisons? We already have enough problems with Christians being deemed unintelligent, backward people.
Now they would see us as people who want women to remain barefoot and pregnant with their “quickened” fetuses!
on February 25, 2010 at 11:42 PM Siarlys Jenkins

“Might we change the definition of “independent existence” to the point that we legalize euthanasia of bed-ridden, tube fed, comatose patients?”

No. But as for me, if I am unable to give informed consent, and there is no known treatment to restore ability to give informed consent, remove the tube, do not connect me to the heart-lung machine, do not perform invasive surgery, and let nature take its course. No euthanasia, no thanathasia.

That is about the only question or comment here which evidences either the maturity to merit a response, or shows any sign that you read what you are responding to.