That's weird. Last night I put down one a the many texts I have this quarter the describe, recount, and discuss of host of recent genocides - and I was like.....this is just like abortion!

Brilliant!

I think it's absolutely appalling that the University of Washington allows these people on campus. These are people who hide behind graphic images meant to shock and horrify. Any person who has ever had an abortion can tell you the horror of it and I promise they did not come to that decision lightly. To exploit these images (that were probably illegally obtained) is in itself a violation of human rights. When I see people with these signs on campus, instead of making me think about abortion- I think about the sad and ignorant lives people like Marc Snyder and others live and how unfortunate it is that they are allowed to spread their hateful messages to the younger and innocent students at UW. It makes me ashamed that I have to go to school with people who hold these types of beliefs. Thank you to VOX for being there.

Erin: Who's hiding? I will be out there all day, both days for you come and debate with me. Women "choose" abortion because they feel they have NO OTHER choice. A bad relationship. Money. Fear of Shame. Fear of Parents. Fear of lost dreams. FEAR. Women are told that the baby will ruin their lives. I would be scared to. But the solution is not an abortion to "make it all go away". These women must be ACTIVELY supported and encouraged, even if they decide to place the child for adoption. And talk about hateful messages. :) If I actually cared what your opinion was of me (since you know so VERY well) your words would inspire me to go hang myself. Lastly, the UW is required by law to allow this event. Would you really want to be somewhere where unpopular ideas and beliefs were surpressed and censored? Have you ever held a belief that was unpopular? Freedom is a beautiful thing.

Marc - it is not shown in public or in the media is because it is a private medical procedure. The same reason colonoscopies and appendectomies aren't shown in public.
The reason you want to show these images is clear - you believe abortion=murder and that is clearly a controversial position. As stated in my previous comment, it is a stretch to give an embryo the label human or to afford it any rights.
You are likely motivated by your religion which convolutes the discussion further. You might also be against contraception though I hope you have more sense than that.
Enjoy the comfort of your moral certitude...the reasonable among us must weigh the evidence and make trade-offs among differing values in society.

Jason: "The reason you want to show these images is clear - you believe abortion=murder and that is clearly a controversial position."

The fact that this is a controversial topic is irrelevant. If abortion is not murder, just let the pictures speak for themselves and everyone can move on. What's the problem with that? If it is a perfectly legit medical procedure, who cares if peole see it?

"As stated in my previous comment, it is a stretch to give an embryo the label human or to afford it any rights."

If an embryo is not a human, what is it? I've never heard of any case in which an embryo inside of a woman has been anything other than human. When exactly do you believe a person should get rights?

"You are likely motivated by your religion which convolutes the discussion further. "
You are the only person who has mentioned religion so far. There are atheist groups against abortion. Religion can, in fact, be left out of this conversation. If you would like to talk religion another time though, that's fine, even though that can sometimes be considered controverial.

"You might also be against contraception though I hope you have more sense than that."
Again, irrelevant. Are you trying to change the topic to avoid the reality of abortion?

"the reasonable among us must weigh the evidence and make trade-offs among differing values in society."
The trade-off among differing values? Do we make trade-offs when a mother murders her one week old son when she is fearful of taking care of him? Do we make trade-offs when a parent beats his child? Why should we make trade-offs when the most innocent of people is being killed within the womb?

Jason:

"you are within your rights to bother your fellow classmates and croak out your slogans to passerbys."
These pictures will bother people. Abortion is bothersome.

"Most will move on just as most pass by the Mormons, the crazy evangelicals, and environuts, etc."
Some will pass by. Some will ignore the pictures. Some will go around red square to avoid them. Many will stop though because their conscious simply will not allow them to ignore the horror of the truth of abortion.

"Speaking of technology making an embryo viable, someday soon technology will be at the point where you can take a sperm or egg cell and induce it to develop... then it will skin cells and we'll all be committing "genocide" as we brush our hair."
I'm not quite sure I understand you? Are you saying a sperm alone will be induced to develop into a human? Where are you getting your information? Can you back this up?

"For example, it is within your power to save real living innocent children who are starving today - whenever you buy a latte, purchase new clothes, go out to movie, you tacitly put a value on those things above that of the starving child as the money could have been spent on food aid or medicines."

This is true. Certainly we should be good stewards of our money and think not only of ourselves. Thank you for providing an example.

In regards to abortion, however, what do you feel is a justifiable "trade-off" for killing an unwanted, unborn child? Killing an innocent human being is always wrong. A child in the womb is the most innocent human being.

"If you want to be morally outraged and do something positive; then focus on your own actions and how you can make one living person's life a bit brighter today."
Jason, I do focus on my own actions. That does not mean I must ignore the actions of others. GAP helps others. There are testimonies on their website of people who have changed their minds, but more importantly, who have decided not to abort their babies. Certainly the life of that baby is brighter. The life of that mother is also brighter. She will not have to carry the weight of an abortion for the rest of her life.

I also wonder if you would say the say thing to me if I were holding a protest against slavery? genocide in another country? against child-molestors? I use these examples not to compare mothers to slave-masters, etc, but to compare their unjust cruelty and, in some cases, the lack of personhood granted to the victims.

PS I will be out in Red Square all day Wednesday if you would like to speak in person. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue and share your opinions. I'll also be checking back here though!

I was also disgusted by the posters on campus, but not just because of their graphic nature. I was more distraught by the comparisons of obviously posed embryos with photographs of actual genocide victims. Merriam-Webster defines genocide as "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." Last time I checked embryos did not fit that category.

I don't think anyone out there wants to have an abortion, they are not pleasant, but I for one am glad that the option is out there because I would not feel right bringing a child into this world who I know I could not support. It is my right to chose and I will fight long and hard to maintain that right.

If we start considering embryos as people and give them the same rights as humans then what should we charge women with who have miscarriages when the fetus has become viable, involuntary manslaughter? People should be afforded rights when they are born. The state of Washington allows for women to have elective abortions up to the point that a fetus is viable, so they would not be having them at 36 weeks. Abortion is never an easy decision to make, but it has to be an option for women because they must have their own reproductive rights.

This poster campaign created by GAP and sponsored by a UW students organization, is nothing more than propaganda meant to frighten and mislead people. How do you think those girls feel who have had to make the decision to have abortions and come to campus and see those posters? It is harassment for them to be compared to members of Nazi Germany or of the KKK.

I can only advise people to ignore this display and go support the planned parenthood group VOX, which will be at the Hub this week.

Jason:
"I don't accept your conclusion that abortion = murder of a child because an embryo is not a child..."

Look up child on dictionary.com (or wherever). I'll provide two given definitions:
1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl
4. a human fetus.
I'll assume you were working with definition #1. So let's, for the sake of argument, say that a embryo is not a child. We could then move on to say that a child is not an adult. Do we have more of a right to kill a child than a an adult because it's not an adult yet?

Terms such as embryo, fetus, toddler, child, teenager, adult are just TERMS to describe the stage of development or LIFE that an existing human is in.

"It is grotesque and indefensible to compare the disposal of an embryo that has no feelings, no thoughts, no sensation, no memory to the murder of a living human being persecuted in a genocide"
Since 1973, more than 50 million babies have been killed. THAT is grotesque! The common factor in all genocide is the killing of a lot of people. The definition of genocide is working definition that continue to grow as new forms of genocide occur and are recognized. In Cambodia, smart people were killed. If you had glasses to see, look out! It would be assumed that you could read and thus were educated. It wasn't about race or religion.

"The trade-off is the freedom women have to choose when they are ready to be mothers, the prevention of suffering of unwanted children and their effects on society (crime, etc), and the savings of resources that can be devoted to the people who are born."
Women can choose when they want to be mothers a variety of ways. Let's not get into that though. Let's talk about the CHOICE you are talking about. Abortion. Again, what is abortion? It's the killing of an unborn, unwanted baby? Can you tell me again why THAT is ok?

"If you could lift off your ideological blinders for a moment and actually look at the evidence, it is clear why though it is not done lightly and there must be rules, allowing abortion results in net benefits to society."
If there was a net benefit to society to kill all the BORN, unwanted children, would you believe in a women's right to do that?

"If we start considering embryos as people and give them the same rights as humans..."
What do you consider an embryo? And if they should not have all of the rights, how many should they have? 2/5ths? Or maybe 3/5ths like black slaves used to have?

"...should we charge women with who have miscarriages when the fetus has become viable, involuntary manslaughter?"
I have not heard anyone suggest this. I would charge the abortionist with murder though.

"The state of Washington allows for women to have elective abortions up to the point that a fetus is viable, so they would not be having them at 36 weeks"
In the United States, a woman can have abortion for no reason during the first two trimesters and then for any reason in the third. This is all thanks to a decision handed down by the supreme court on the doe v bolton case (handed down the same day as roe v wade decision) This decision gives a woman the right to have an abortion for any reason that might affect her health, including mental, physical, familial, anything!

"How do you think those girls feel who have had to make the decision to have abortions and come to campus and see those posters?" I have no doubt that they felt horrible. But it is not a feeling that they haven't already been feeling. While I do not wish for anyone's feelings to be hurt, I believe that lives trump feelings. One girl told volunteers today that she was pregnant and prior to seeing the pictures, the truth of abortion, she had not decided what she was going to do. She will no longer consider abortion an option. Furthermore, this is taken into consideration by those bringing the display to campus. As you might have noticed, leaving red square there are signs with phone numbers for crisis pregnancy help and post-abortive help.

(Jason: I would argue that this is a justifiable trade-off. Lives trump feelings.)

"If there was a net benefit to society to kill all the BORN, unwanted children, would you believe in a women's right to do that?"

No, it is wrong to kill children. And no traditional dictionary defines a child as a fetus. Aborted embryos are not children though. Are they alive? Yes but in the same sense that a starfish is alive - bobbing without awareness. That is why abortion is not morally equivalent to murder.

You are dancing around the "feeling" you have that embryos are God's innocent children - sacred blessings, etc. This is really your primary argument though you haven't mentioned it - that's a bit dishonest but ok because I can see your strategy - try to use images, fear, etc to appeal to people's sensibilities but never the reasonable evidence because there you clearly lose.

"You are dancing around the "feeling" you have that embryos are God's innocent children - sacred blessings, etc. This is really your primary argument though you haven't mentioned it - that's a bit dishonest but ok because I can see your strategy - try to use images, fear, etc to appeal to people's sensibilities but never the reasonable evidence because there you clearly lose."

If it is fair for you to assume that my primary motive is something I have not mentioned, is it fair for me to assume your primary motive is that you hate babies? worship the devil?

I won't assume that though. That would be ridiculous.

What are people afraid of when they look at the images of an aborted baby?

Furthermore, I have been giving "reasonable evidence" in this discussion. I'm pretty sure I haven't posted any pictures. There has also been a ton of conversation over the last two days out at the display.

Just one last question. How is using a picture when discussing something unreasonable? Are visual aids not usually helpful?

"No, it is wrong to kill children. And no traditional dictionary defines a child as a fetus. Aborted embryos are not children though. Are they alive? Yes but in the same sense that a starfish is alive - bobbing without awareness. That is why abortion is not morally equivalent to murder."

Do you prefer merriam-webster? child: "1 a: an unborn or recently born person"

Kaleic:

Did you by any chance find how the surpreme court defined health. Like I said, abortions can happen for any reason.

"According to your logic of charging an abortionist with murder, you would have to charge a mother with involuntary manslaughter." We would not HAVE to do any such thing.

Women are starting to speak out against abortion because they have experienced the pains of it. They have been told the lies of choice and freedom. Here is just one such group: http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/... Women may feel relief, but it is about their circumstances, not killing their child.

"If we start to limit the choices for women that is taking away their reproductive freedoms and their freedoms to make decisions for themselves"
Choice is great. I enjoy getting up in the morning (or choosing to hit the snooze button) and choosing my breakfast, choosing what to wear. I enjoy choosing what car I want to buy, etc. But what is the choice we are talking about in this case? We are talking about the choice to let a baby live or kill a baby.

As far as breast cancer, there are now 27 out of 33 worldwide studies which have linked induced abortion to breast cancer. For more information, you can go to www.abortionbreastcancer.com One study was done by Dr. Janet Daling at Seattle's Fred Hutchingson Cancer Research Center. It should be noted that she was an abortion supporter. She found that "among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women" [Daling et al., "Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion," J Ntl Cancer Inst (1994) 86(21):1584-1592].

"What reason or evidence do you have that justifies the position that the unborn is equivalent to a thinking, feeling, self-aware person?"

There have been studies that show a baby can become habituated to their mother's voice while in utero and will respond to her voice and distinguish between her voice and a strangers within hours of being born. Habituation is the technique that researchers use to study memory and recall in infants as old as six months. If an infant that is in utero is demonstrating some of the same mental abilities as an infant up to the age of six months, how can you know that they do not think or feel? And as for self-awareness, most infants usually pass the self-awareness test around 18 months.
If thinking, feeling, and being self-aware are all requirements for being human, then are infants up to 18 months not quite human?
It is impossible to know the actual mental capacities of a baby that is still in utero, so isn't it better to be safe than sorry?

Hannah - I appreciate you comments. I don't think it is a black and white issue. At some point in development, the fetus becomes capable of sensory perception, possibly even being able to feel pain or soothing. Though this doesn't make the fetus any more a person, it does make them more than a collection of human cells. That's why abortion is regulated and generally not advised after the first trimester and not allowed after the 2nd except in cases where it will affect maternal health. Society does have an interest in protecting the fetus at late stages because it is developing many of the rudimentary capacities that will change it into a baby. If you read the comments in Roe V Wade, that is basically the argument and I agree with it.

Ultimately, the pregnant woman should have most authority over the fetus - she knows whether she is ready to care and nurture a child; abortion bans will result in "dirty abortions" that will kill the mother and fetus.

Having studied developmental psychology, I also understand your comments on self-awareness. I don't think babies are equivalent to adults - if a baby dies in a car crash with a mature, productive adult; I'd mourn the adult more. Innocence aside, the baby has little to lose and society must value a fully developed individual more. That said, babies should have full rights as human beings as they are identity-forming entities with capacities to form attachments, suffer, feel, think (process), etc.

Cat: This is a LOT to talk about. If you would like to talk in more detail about any of these things, please email me at s4ber@u.washington.edu. I’ll try to be concise. I am a “staunch prolifer”.
1) The body of the baby is “medical waste” and typically incinerated. If you believe people have souls, it does not make sense for them to acquire a soul at any point but conception. Since they have had no opportunity to sin, they would go to straight to heaven.
2) “Vitro Fertilization”: I believe that life begins at conception. Every time an egg is fertilized with a sperm it results in a perfectly unique genetic code that will become someone who can never be reproduced. Those 127,977 fertilized embryos, genetic combinations, are lost forever. Just because modern science is capable of something does NOT mean that it should be done. I believe any of these embryos that are thrown away qualify as having been “electively aborted”, and that is immoral.
3)There is a VERY big difference between the “health” and “life” of the mother. There are cases where the mother will die if the fetus is not removed. And because the baby will die if the mother dies, that cannot be allowed to happen, so removal is the morally correct decision. This procedure, however, must be done in manner to provide the fetus the best possible chance to survive it and survive out side of the womb. In most cases of this type of pregnancy, the fetus has no chance whatsoever. But remember that technology has advanced to the point where fetuses as young as 20 WEEKS gestation have survived.
4)I would be a hypocrite not to support seeing the baby to full term. Keeping the baby vs. placing for adoption would be a much harder/complex decision that would have to be agreed on by both parents. So for me, yes.
5)That is natural. That is NOT elective abortion. See number 1 concerning they’re souls. Yes, they are genetically human, yes, they are alive and growing. Yes, they are human life.
6)Have I adopted? No. Would I? Yes. Would I for a special needs child? Yes, if I could be reasonably certain that I would have the financial resources to care for them in the way that they require. Yes, I would raise foster children.
7) and 8) I believe that these can be very good and helpful things to the people that need them. Unfortunately, all three of the programs you mention are utterly fraught with corruption and mismanagement that has made them only minimally effective.
You say that you believe in a woman’s right to choose what to do with her “own body”. So do I. The problem is, the child in her womb is NOT her “own body”. The child in her womb is a new, different, genetically unique person. The mother sustains her child, but they are not two parts of one body. Example: If the child is male, does the mother temporarily have a penis? No. This is why “my body, my choice” is completely invalid.

6) Have you adopted a child? Would you ever adopt a child? And more importantly, would you adopt a child from a high-risk background (such as a child labeled as a "crack baby") who might otherwise become a ward of the state? Would you or have you housed foster children?

I have not adopted a child, but I would. I would adopt a child from a high-risk background. I have not housed foster children. I should probably have my own house before I try to house anyone. :) I am open to foster children as well.

Jason: "Society does have an interest in protecting the fetus at late stages because it is developing many of the rudimentary capacities that will change it into a baby."

Are you saying that we should give people rights based on our own interests? Also, from the moment of conception the human (fertilized egg, embryo, whatever you prefer to call it) is starting the developing process of turning it into a baby (at a later stage of life). It's a long process. We don't kill outside of the womb based on stage of life. Why is it ok inside the womb?

"Ultimately, the pregnant woman should have most authority over the fetus - she knows whether she is ready to care and nurture a child; abortion bans will result in "dirty abortions" that will kill the mother and fetus."
Ultimately a woman/mother has the most authority over her born child, but we do not give her the right to choose life of death for her children. "Bans" on murder and child abuse have not completely stopped murder or child abuse (sometimes resulting in a dead murder or abuser), but we don't give the murder or abuser more rights to act out violently in a safer way.

"Innocence aside, the baby has little to lose and society must value a fully developed individual more. " Wow. What about those who are physically and mentally handicapped? Should society also value them less? What about the uneducated?

"That said, babies should have full rights as human beings as they are identity-forming entities with capacities to form attachments, suffer, feel, think (process), etc." I'm glad we agree babies should have full rights as human beings. So why are you still unwilling to give a baby in the womb rights? Because we can also call it a fetus? (I hope no one ever nicknames me fetus...) Or is it just the UNWANTED babies in the womb that don't get rights?

To illustrate the point further, no one persecutes an embryo based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc because they have none. In fact, lacking the ability to feel persecution or any form of suffering, an embryo is incapable of caring whether it develops or doesn't. It has no self-interest, no identity, no memory - it cannot experience fear, sadness, grief, isolation because it isn't alive in the sense that a person is. It is alive in the sense of a starfish or similar animal with little to no nervous system.

When you say "persecution" or "murder" or "genocide" or "human rights" in relation to abortion, you are assuming the fetus has the same characteristics as a developed person - they don't - therefore the analogy is flawed, not to mention disturbing.

"Basically, your statement is correct - I look at an embryo or fetus and see that it isn't anything like a person except that it is has human DNA."

Jason, thank you for admitting you have no just cause for abortion.

"Again, it's about trade-offs but the most important point is that an embryo or fetus, especially at early stages of development is so different from a person that to make a comparison between abortion and repression, slavery, murder, genocide, etc is ridiculous and dishonest."
After the previous quote of yours I have included in this post, I think the comparison is as honest as it gets. You have admitted you are just looking at the embryo and seeing how it is different. That is the same thing that happened in all of these other circumstances.

"That is really what bothers me most about most "pro-life" groups - not that they want to protect "the unborn" but that they lie about their motives and dress up their religious-based morality in secular ethical terms"
The fact is that abortion is wrong no matter how you look at it. We don't need to dress up our terms like you do: "choice," "reproductive freedom," etc. We can just argue the point from multiple perspectives.

"That is really what bothers me most about most "pro-life" groups - not that they want to protect "the unborn" but that they lie about their motives and dress up their religious-based morality in secular ethical terms."
When have I lied about my motives? I want to protect and save unborn, unwanted children. That's about as simple as it gets. Would you also accuse me of having other motives if I wanted to protect children who were being neglected? women being raped? Of course not.

"To have a discussion, both groups must divulge their basic assumptions otherwise people are just talking past each other."
I'm confused. Should we meet on common ground to discuss this by leaving religion out of it or not?

"To illustrate the point further, no one persecutes an embryo based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc because they have none." If they were, would you be upset? In other countries, people kill babies because they aren't male all the time. Does that bother you? In the United States it is much more simple, however. We just persecute the ones that are unwanted and inconvenient.

Cat?

Nicole - Do you support education and contraceptive use that mitigates the incidence of unintended pregnancy? Why or why not?

"Nicole - Do you support education and contraceptive use that mitigates the incidence of unintended pregnancy? Why or why not?"

This is a different issue altogether. With or with out these, abortion is still a moral wrong.

I will still answer your question though.

I support education, including education on what exactly abortion is. Education is always beneficial. The more people know, the better and more informed choices they can make.

I do not support contraception. If you would like to know my religious views on this, feel free to ask. I'm sure the fact that I have religious reasons is enough for you though and you don't really care. I would also like to add that the use of contraception has not decreased the number of unwanted pregnancies. While it prevents unwanted pregnancies, the numbers are still much higher than before contraception.

I think it's really ironic that you don't support free, subsidized health care or welfare, Nichole.

I know you say it's a good thing that everyone should have, but isn't it more than that? Charity is a good thing that all people ought to get when they need it, like the charity care your family recieved.

I'm assuming that you consider it charity, based on your opposition (or lack of support) for free or socialized health care. This would be principally different from the belief that health care is a right.

This point is relevant to a discussion about abortion because it ties into what a right to life means. If someone is sick and there's medical treatment that could save their life, do they have a right to that treatment regardless of their ability to pay for it? Careful, saying that they have the right to medical care has consequences. Denial of care or treatment is now a violation of human rights.

Many social conservatives argue that there is no right to health care as such. Though it behooves society to be charitable, we are not compelled to care for the poor who are sick the same way as we are compelled not to murder them.

The ironic part, is that the same social conservatives who believe that a deathly ill person has no right, so to speak, to the care and resources that could sustain their life, make an anti-abortion argument asserting that fetuses have the same rights as people. What right is that exactly? Is it the right to life saving/sustaining health care? The right to the use of someone else's body?

For a better analogy, imagine a person in need of a kidney transplant for the sake of a though experiment imagine that there's no dialysis available (they might be in some isolated town). They're only hope is an organ donor and there's only one match around. Does the sick person have a "right" to this person's kidney which overrides this person's right to control what happens with their body?

Sarah:

Random side note: thanks for spelling my name correctly. :)

"Charity is a good thing that all people ought to get when they need it, like the charity care your family recieved."

We simply disagree on when the need for charity is and how that charity comes across. Sometimes charity is financial. Sometimes we are called to act charitably by giving time or empowering someone to help themselves. I really believe that most liberals and conservatives desire to help people. We just have very different opinions on how to do it.

"I'm assuming that you consider it charity, based on your opposition (or lack of support) for free or socialized health care. This would be principally different from the belief that health care is a right."
In this case it was charity. Most hospitals have charity funds set aside. I would like to add that my belief on health care, does not affect whether something is charity or not.

"This point is relevant to a discussion about abortion because it ties into what a right to life means."
Then it is relevant to a discussion on the right to life. To steal a line from Fletcher A. on the other GAP article thread, "Even if I’m wrong in my position on how best to pay for children’s health care, how would that justify killing a human being?" I'm not against talking about these other issues, which is why I answered the questions, but they do not determine (or carry any weight in the decision of) whether abortion is wrong or right.

"If someone is sick and there's medical treatment that could save their life, do they have a right to that treatment regardless of their ability to pay for it?" Certainly we would like to get everyone the best care possible. I do not believe free health care from the government will give us that though (and I have not seen that in other countries). Unfortunately there is not an easy answer. I do think everyone has a right to free basic health care and that, as people, we have a commitment to taking care of each other. I also believe that this is already being done. There are many clinics with sliding scales and many charities available. Certainly this does not cover 100% of problems, but people also just don't know what resources are available. Furthermore, why would anyone step up charitably if the government is doing everything already. It's basically forced charity through taxes, which is not charity at all. We are not meant to be dependent on the government or to have the easy out by letting them do the work for us. We are meant to work together within our own communities.

"For a better analogy, imagine a person in need of a kidney transplant for the sake of a though experiment imagine that there's no dialysis available (they might be in some isolated town). They're only hope is an organ donor and there's only one match around. Does the sick person have a "right" to this person's kidney which overrides this person's right to control what happens with their body?" We do not have a right to take a kidney from someone, that could potentially need it later in their life. For the sake of arguement, however, let's go ahead and pretend that this is a right. You need a kidney, so you have the right to someone's "extra." That kidney will save a life. In the case of abortion, what life is being saved? None. These are completely different situations and the analogy is quite flawed. I understand where you are trying to go with it, but it just does not work. Let's also keep in mind that the kidney serves a purpose for the person whose body it is in. What purpose does your uterus serve you? None. It only serves to protect the baby growing within the woman. But in this country, we are allowing doctors to go into the safest place meant to protect a baby, to kill it. How is that justifiable?

Genocide? Raphael Lempkin, a Polish Jew, coined the word in 1944. In no way can it be applied to abortion. Abortion is not an attempt to wipe out a race.

Richard,

Abortion has been and is applied to much more than just an attempt to wipe out a race.

We are systematically, under laws, allowing the killing of 1 out of every 3-4 children simply because they are unwanted.

The person that is pregnant is in the best position to make this decision. She knows her life, her body and whatever impact her decisions will result in. Who else is going to carry the burden for her over whichever decision she makes? It's easy for other people to tell someone what to do, but you are never quite there, in the exact same shoes. That said, they woman can be pro-choice or pro-life either way, and that is her her choice and she will live with the benefits and consequences. It is really not up to other people to make up the decision for her.

I respect people who are personally pro choice and pro-life because it's really non of my business. I'm not the one who will be carrying for a child for 9 months for the guilt of an abortion.

From this whole abortion debate, it seems to be only side tells the other side what to do. Pro-life supports literally tries to force woman not have an abortion, and giving her advice that would impact her life forever. Pro-choice however, leaves it up to the person who knows best. If she decide to "kill" a life, then that is the burden that she will carry for a long time. It is not our place to make decisions for her.

I firmly believe that it's not our business to meddle with people's personal lives, whether it is religion, gay marriage or sodomy laws. Abortion is the same

Sarah, Annie and anyone else:
Pro-life people love "choice" as much as you do. We just realize that some choices are wrong. To refresh what choice we are actually talking about, go here: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/p...

The unborn are human beings. They are people. They are alive, growing, and genetically unique, they may depend on the mother's body, but THEY ARE NOT part of the the mother's body. They have their own body.

It is wrong/immoral/murder to kill innocent human beings.

Abortion intentionally kills a living, growing, unique human being.

Therefore, abortion is wrong. And because of the systematic intent, the massive scale, the government sanctioned nature, and the dehumanization of the victims, Abortion is ALSO genocide.

The immorality of abortion is not complicated. Either it is, or it is not. All of the "special cases" you appeal to cannot change this.

It is not a blob of cells. It is a person.

For a relevant recent discussion, see

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cos...

Jason: Since your back, I thought I would ask you about this, if this is reasonable for you, "When I say "we" I mean society's general attitude as reflected in current law, public opinion polling, and expert opinion."
1. Are you sure public opinion supports your views? http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/Mor...
2. Which experts?

Annie: Forgive me when I say this because I don't mean to offend you personally, but saying, "Really, I cannot be involved in every genocide in the world" is sorry cop-out if I ever saw one. We do not expect everyone to take up arms and fly around the world killing bad guys their whole life. But is it really too much to ask to take a moral stand on a grave issue?

You bring up China's forced abortion policies. I'm fine not going into details. But I am not fine with the way you fail to pass any moral judgment whatsoever about this policy. Do you take a moral stand on ANYTHING? It is pure barbarism. Please tell me you can see that. This does not mean I judge your mother. She is a victim too!

You keep making these blanket statements: "Nothing is black and white when it comes to the law." and "Neither side is willing to take both people into consideration." Saying these things only serves to shut the conversation down. It is not productive.

Concerning the “special cases”: This is copied from the thread on the opinion column from May 29th. :
“A "pro-life" stance that makes exception for either rape or incest is an inconsistent one. If killing a baby is wrong, how can killing a baby because her father is a criminal be ok? If killing a baby is wrong, how can killing a baby whose parents are too closely related be ok? That's called punishing the child for the crime of the parent. We do not allow that in any other conceivable legal situation. Why would we for this?”

I shall restate that whether or not abortion is moral has nothing to do with how that baby came to exist in the first place. It has nothing to do with whether that baby is wanted or unwanted, deformed or perfectly healthy. These things have NOTHING to do with whether or not the baby is a PERSON. If it is a person, it is WRONG, and if it is not a person, it is NOT wrong.

Rape, incest, deformity, wantedness, etc. are DISTRACTIONS that are not capable of taking away personhood. It is a person. OR, it is not a person. Not complicated.

Jason: Ok, so it sounds like we can agree that the article says to caution against defaulting or using only religious-based arguements and ignoring evidence. As it turns out, I am a profoundly religious person as you suspected. Congratulations. However, I HAVE refrained from using any religious arguements. I believe that I don't even need to use religious arguements to show that abortion is immoral. And, let's remember that it is possible to have morality outside of religion. I did talk about souls with "Cat D.", but that was because she asked my thoughts explicitly. Just because I am religious does not mean that any secular arguments I use are automatically invalid.

After looking back through your posts, there is a point that I would like to discuss further with you. Twice you mentioned a "bright line", a point where before that, a fetus is not a person and abortion is permissible, and where after that, a fetus is a person, and abortion is no longer permissible.

Calling it a "bright line" seems to indicate that it would be something very clear, obvious to detect, immovable, and ultimately definitive. The problem was that when you mentioned it, you offered inherently VAGUE possibilities for just exactly where that "bright line" is. The first time, you said, "...maybe that's higher brain function...rudimentary perception...and [ability] to feel." Then the second time, you said,"...neurobiological capacity for human thought *around* 28 weeks..."

I take from this that you think there is some point mid-pregnancy where the fetus becomes a person and gets rights. But I get the feeling that your "bright line" is not so clear and obvious afterall. Would you like to clarify or narrow this down a little bit?

I offered this scenario a while ago, but since we're talking about specific points during the pregnancy again when a fetus becomes a person and gets rights, I think we should revisit it:
Two babies - The first one was born prematurely at 21 weeks gestation, is cared for in a NICU and survives. The second one makes it to 34 weeks gestation, but is legally aborted before birth. The first one is called a person and gets rights. The second is called a fetus and has no rights. How can you reconcile this?

Jason: "What I think the article concludes is that the answers to questions like "when a person begins" aren't straightforward and it is fruitless for people on either side to simply shout 'abortion is murder' or 'a woman's right to choose.'"
It can be fruitless. That's why the Genocide Awareness Project uses pictures. It shows you exactly what abortion is. Once you have established what "choice" you are talking about, it's a lot easier to move forward.

"Without looking at the evidence that science has accumulated about human development, biology, neuroscience, etc, many "pro-lifers" assert that an embryo is equal to a full person, therefore an abortion is equivalent to murder. That is willful blindness. What is the premise based on?" Feel free to respond to the readers. I know you don't want to talk to me anymore. You still have not given a definition, other than you own (which still wasn't very clear), of what a "full person" is. Unless of course we use your definition which excludes those that are handicapped, etc. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that isn't that definition you want to use.

Annie: I apologize if you thought I was asking if you HAVE any morals. I'm sure you do. I was asking if there is anything that you would take a moral STAND on. Is there? And I simply must ask you again what you think about the policy of forced abortion by the Chinese government. Is that right or wrong? If for any reason you are unable to make a judgement or think that it is a good thing, I don't believe that any words of reason would be able to help you and I would simply have to refer you to visual evidence of this crime against humanity and hope that it would help you find your conscience.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/p...

Marc, the chinese policy goes against my own beliefs because it forces women to have abortions, leaving them no choice to make decisions for themselves if they are pregnant with a 2nd child. My disagreement isn't based on the fundamental idea that abortion is murder.
This is the extreme of one side, where a woman must abort to abide by her country's law. That said, if the law changes to force a woman to keep the baby under any circumstances, I would also disagree.
If you include China, I like to see this abortion debate as 3 different parts. Pro-life, Pro-abortion and pro-choice.
Nichole, that ultimately comes down to what's a definition of a baby. My personal view, which I know you disagree with, is that if the baby is not capable of living outside of the womb by him/herself with all the medical help, then I don't really consider it to be alive. Of course, medical technology improves as time goes on so the definition of a viable baby has changed in my eyes over the years. Therefore, to a certain point or in certain situations, I don't believe that the baby deserves the same protection.

Annie: "My personal view, which I know you disagree with, is that if the baby is not capable of living outside of the womb by him/herself with all the medical help, then I don't really consider it to be alive. Of course, medical technology improves as time goes on so the definition of a viable baby has changed in my eyes over the years. Therefore, to a certain point or in certain situations, I don't believe that the baby deserves the same protection."
Annie, what about an adult on life support? Ventilator? What about my niece who is only 2 1/2 weeks old, just had heart surgery, and is on a ventilator? Do we (or mothers) have the right to kill any of them since they can not live with out medical treatment?

Jason: I understand now. You are right. Your conversation with Nichole was pointless and fruitless. And so too is the conversation between you and I. So let's drop the whole abortion thing.
Our world views are irreconcilable. I believe in God. You don't. We really are talking past eachother on abortion.
So, as with Annie my last chance is to refer you to the pictures that reveal the outcome of the kinds of justifications you subscribe to. Pictures of bloddy, dismembered children.
www.abortionno.org
I will pray that you might find your conscience some day in the future.

As for the question of "God", I think you would be very interested to see Ben Stein's recent documentary "Expelled". Sympathetic, I know you will not be to the plight of professors and scientists who are fired because they even entertained the possibility of the exisitence of a god and theory of Intelligent Design. But he offers a challenge that I am sure a smart guy like you will not be able to turn down: We know that the universe began with the "Big Bang". What, or Who initiated that event?

Something cannot come from nothing, Jason. How did it ALL start, if not by God?

I hope you can come up with something less embarrassing than Richard Dawkin's and his friends, who after spending an entire lifetime trying to disprove God, could only come up with a fantasy about "life, riding on the backs of crystals" and "aliens" before finally admitting that they had no idea.

Marc - I have seen Expelled - the makers of that documentary took their plot right from Michael Moore's playbook...it was all flash and pictures of Nazis and no substance. Much like your website and GAP's display--equally dishonest but not as disturbing.

My views on religion are fairly moderate - to the extent that your faith brings you comfort and promotes compassion, I am glad that you cling to it. In as much as it blinds you to reason and compels you to promote your confused belief/moral system in the public square, I hope you are able to someday outgrow it.

That last comment reveals again how extremist you are. You keep trying to find some historically allegory to compare abortion to but there isn't one - abortion is the termination of a pregnancy where at most, a proto-life is destroyed. There really is a difference between an embryo and a child. Denying this on metaphysical grounds is not an argument - it is assertion and it leads to your multiple false analogies like slavery and genocide. These were people that were abused and murdered...they lived, breathed, loved, considered, experienced, etc. Your comparisons are easily dismissed by anyone who gives this topic more than a cursory glance.

Nobody is "pro-baby-killing" or "pro-abortion" - that simplified and reductionist rhetoric is exactly what leads to the political and social divide that has become so extreme in the U.S. in the last few decades.

While I go looking for a conscience, I wish for you to redirect your energies to something that has an actual positive effect on the world and those living in it. Promoting sex-education and contraception would be a good start. But there is also homelessness, the underfed, the underloved, the environment, etc.

If you're having trouble visualizing the scenario, please see here: http://www.abortionno.org/GAP/signs/G...
The two babies are shown at 24 weeks gestation. That is bad enough. But when you account that the youngest preemie to survive to date was born at 21 weeks and that in the U.S. it is in fact still legal to abort until the day of birth. One gets an idea of the monstrous irrationality.