About this forum:

Please note that this file contains selected comments taken from e-mails sent to T.F.Barans. This is intended to be a representative sample of correspondence. Not all e-mails are included; those most likely to be included are those that discuss the issues intellegently, not those who call names or who use excessive profanity. Submissions may be edited for space and relevance and extraneous or personal comments may be omitted, however the actual words selected for inclusion will be used exactly as submitted.
In most cases, T.F.Barans will have already exchanged correspondence directly with the writer and even if the writer has received a response from T.F.Barans directly via e-mail, it may take a few days before the response is included in this forum.
Most recent additions are shown first.

Comments from those SUPPORTING women's reproductive self-determination (PRO-CHOICE) are shown in GREEN.
Comments from those OPPOSING women's reproductive self-determination (ANTI-CHOICE) are shown in RED.
Replies by T.F.Barans are shown in BLUE (different shade than e-mail links and not underlined).
Neutral editorial explanations and general information not part of the dialogue are shown in BLACK

Notes:
1. While comments in agreement and disagreement are shown, this forum is a commentary on the article by T.F.Barans. The editors will try to present a balanced dialogue, but do not claim to be impartial and cannot ensure absolute objectivity.
2. Entries are presented in a dialogue format -- i.e., a series of related entries by a single writer are grouped together, with T.F.Barans' replies to specific comments. Generally, individual writers focus on a specific area of interest or viewpoint (religious, legal, scientific, moral, medical, etc.), and different writers submissions may focus on very different aspects of the issue. Because some of the dialogues include numerous back-and-forth exchanges of e-mails, some of them are rather lengthy. If one specific discussion is not in your area of interest, you may wish to scroll down and see if the next writer included a subject of more interest to you.
3. Will also occasionally invite and include participation of (and additional commentary from) additional participatns with special qualifications and expertise.

Dialogue with Fastbreakers
Fastbreakers writes on 1-20-03:

There are many powerful prolife arguments that may be explored, but I will just spend a few times knocking down some prochoice arguments you make.

You are obviously an intelligent, articulate person, but with due respect, several of your prochoice arguments, particularly the one's concerning late abortion, are REMARKABLY weak. I dispose of them here.

Argument #1
NO PERSON SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO USE THEIR BODIES TO KEEP ANOTHER ALIVE.
Judith Jarvis Thomson, for example, argues that if, hypothetically, you were in a state of being artificially connected to someone who needed use of your kidneys to survive, you would be morally free to disconnect and walk away, even if it kills him in the process. In my view, the fatal flaw in her very famous essay is actually simple.

TFB replies: So far you fail to recognize the rather relevant distinction between the moral argument and the legal argument. I would argue that, depending on the reasons why you chose to disconnect (i.e., to run out and save a young child running in front of a car; the patient is old, terminal and asked you to disconnect) that it WOULD be MORALLY untenable to disconnect and walk away. However, morality is a question of ethics and beliefs; I would say that the person also has the absolute right to make that choice, even if it is one my moral beliefs wouldn't allow me to make. If you'll notice in how I structured my commentary, the issues of a woman's bodily sovereignty deal mostly with the legal aspect, while the issues of embryonic or fetal personhood go to the issue of the moral aspect.

FB: Disconnecting from the patient allows a pre-existing kidney ailment run its course. You did not injure his kidneys, deliberately or otherwise.

TFB replies: So let me ask you: let's say you were the driver of a car, at fault in an accident that caused the kidney ailment. Should you then have the legal and/or moral right to disconnect? (When I ask about legalities, I am assuming a set of laws that you believe ought to be on the books, not what is our current law, which I presume you disagree with.)

FB: Cutting a fetus out of the womb delivers a fatal injury to the fetus, a heretofore perfectly fine, healthy fetus. Disconnection takes a HANDS-OFF approach to a PREEXISTING terminal condition. Abortion is HANDS-ON and INITIATES a terminal condition.

TFB replies: Then let me ask you again: if there were a procedure to remove the embryo or fetus completely intact (alive and healthy), would you find it morally or legally acceptable to disconnect this embryo/fetus, remove it alive and healthy and "let nature take its course" as you would with the kidney patient?

FB: Thomson's argument is representative of the feminist, bodily-autonomy paradigm. It maintains that women's right to control their bodies extends to the right to be free from bodily impositions such as pregnancy. But the claim implicitly assumes the faulty proposition that one has the right to kill in order to regain control of one's body. This proposition is especially weak with regards the relationship of parent to offspring. Consider that even after birth, keeping one's child alive requires use of the parents' bodies, for I do not know of a way to raise a child by telekinesis. Physiologically, calories are expended as caretaker or breadwinner, and it is self-evident that neither parent - female or male - may kill the kid in order to regain the free use of their bodies (even if they do not have the option of putting the child up for adoption). Again, your baby does not have a right, say, your bone marrow if he or she needs a transplant, and if you wake up in the operating room with a doctor above you with a bone saw, you are entitled to push him away and run.

TFB replies: What an incredibly naive statement. After birth does NOT require use of the PARENTS' bodies. You can use an adoptive parent's body on a long-term basis, or allow short-term substitutions in the form of babysitters or grandparents or many others. After birth, when personhood is clearly established and not even part of the consideration, a woman can call Child Protective Services, tell them she just can't handle caring for her children any more, and they'll come and take the child away. If a woman has this choice AFTER birth, with an actual child who is a human person, it is absurd that there should be any question of an equivalent right when her interests are pitted against something that has the potential for developing attributes of a human person, but does not have such attributes yet manifest.

FB: But that is in no way analogous to asphyxiating your healthy child in the crib because you are tired of using your body to care for him or her. Even passively causing the death of one's once healthy child by neglecting and thereby starving her in order to regain control of one's body is seriously immoral.

TFB replies: Frankly, I don't see much moral distinction between your active and passive involvement; both cause exactly the same result. I do see some difference from the legal perspective, as one prohibits a bad action, and one requires someone to take the initiative of performing an action. Of course, once the kidney patient is connected -- once the "donor" has consented to the connection, it takes an action to disconnect; the passive mood would be to leave the connection in place. So if you take the active step of severing the connection, should that be illegal or immoral?

And what role in this decision making process does the question of embryonic/fetal personhood play? I notice that you did not address this area at all. If the embryo or fetus is not a human person, then the issues of both legal and morality simply have no basis and there is absolutely no reason to infringe the bodily sovereignty of a human person in favor of a potential person that has not made any such decision; in fact, doesn't even have the capacity to consider or care about such questions, much less make a decision.

FB: VIABILITY RENDERS ARGUMENT #1 **TOTALLY** IRRELEVANT(YET YOU STILL USE THE BODILY-AUTONOMY ARGUMENT AS AN EXCUSE FOR A LATE ABORTION)

The bottom line, the part that should be highlighted, speaking of natural or assisted viability, is this: passed viability, aborting a fetus can in no way be equated with simply unattaching the fetus from the mother and allowing it to meet its inevitable and natural fate outside the womb, because the fetus can survive outside the womb. Postviability, the mother can evict the tenant without killing the tenant. The bodily-autonomy argument is defeated in postviability abortions. Abortion cannot then be reduced to the two-fold issue about whether a mother ought to be free to evacuate the contents of her womb, (a right to control her body) and whether a mother has a right to decide whether to rear children (since she can put it up for adoption), but whether she also, specifically, has a right to a dead fetus, no matter what.

TFB replies: If the procedures for extracting a viable, healthy live birth are not substantially more intrusive to the adult human person who owns the body than that of late term abortion, I agree that it should be the preferred option. However, you ignore the reality of late-term abortion. These are rare because they are almost always situations where a wanted pregnancy is terminated because something went wrong, such as a major deformity or other serious condition likely to cause stillbirth or a very early death in any case.

FB: ARGUMENT #2
LATE TERM ABORTION IS AN UNIMPORTANT ISSUE BECAUSE THEY ARE EXTRODANARILY RARE.

It is often mentioned by prochoicers that late-term abortions are rare. Implying what? That society should not bother with rarer subdivisions of injustice? Statistically, late-term abortions are relatively rare. Murder within large populations is statistically rare too. Should we dismiss murderers because of all the people they didn't murder?

Tallying is irrelevant. Quantity is neither here nor there. Once we have determined a kind of wrongful killing is being permitted, it ought to be stopped, whether it happens once or a million times. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977, it has killed far fewer killers than doctors have killed near full-term babies, and no one would dare suggest that the death penalty is a dismissible ethical issue.

TFB replies: The rarity of late-term abortions (about 4 in every 10,000 abortions are in third trimester) is not cited because of moral considerations. The primary reason for raising this point is that anti-choice extremists often make signs or billboards with obscenely graphic pictures taken of LATE-TERM abortions, and (without identifying them as such) hold them up as general arguments against all abortions. Those who engage in "false advertising" and show something that is very rare as a gut-level argument against something far more common but which has little similarity to what you are depicting, deserve to have someone point out their deceptive tactics.
The other important reason for making this point is to show that it is an extreme solution to an extreme condition, and is recognized as such and not widely used in general situations.

FB: ARGUMENT #3
LATE ABORTIONS ARE MEDICALLY-INDICATED -- NOT ELECTIVE.
LEGAL ISSUES:

Let me be clear: elective late-term abortions are legal; legal via the boundless mental health exception. In the Supreme Court decision Doe v. Bolton, elaborating on what the health exception to any late-term abortion ban means, Harry Blackmun, giving the opinion of the court, said "medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient." (Also see United States v. Vuitch.) This is madness.

Let me establish my credibility here. (Ad hominem attacks against men are so frequent, I feel the need to do this, though logically unnecessary.) I am a liberal. Universal health care is an issue that is terribly important in this country. Legitimate mental health issues are serious, and we ought to have guaranteed health care in this country, including full mental health care. But it is neither morally acceptable nor, for that matter, psychologically healthy to use it as an excuse to kill.

Infanticide is not legitimate psychiatric therapy. Distressing social circumstances or distress in general are never, never an excuse to kill a baby. It isn't justification if a mother hires someone to go into the observation ward and inject a heart-stopping agent into a 26 week-gestation premature baby. That is murder. It is definitely not justification to go into the newborn nursery and kill a 28 week-gestation premature baby sleeping in her crib, it is absolutely not justification to kill a 30 week-gestation premature baby after it has just been born and in the delivery doctor's hands, and yet we are to believe that it is an excuse to kill a 32 week-gestation baby who is a few inches back still enclosed within the woman.

TFB replies: At the point when the embryo/fetus is no longer inside the woman's body, then the woman's bodily sovereignty issues is simply no longer relevant. Once it is out of her body, the father has exactly equal rights (and responsibilities) as the mother. If she then chooses not to accept her maternal rights and responsibilities, she can transfer them to someone who does. If you have a tree growing on your yard, it is your business, not mine. If the roots or branches come into my yard I have the right to deal with what is in my yard. Location does make a difference. A fetus inside the womb is different than a baby outside the womb, no matter the age. However, the age of the embryo/fetus is a matter of relevant consideration in determining personhood and the moral aspect of the issue.

FB: To buy that we must accept a bizzaro morality, like the world of bizzaro Superman, or the other side of Alice's looking glass, where the world of good sense is turned on its head, where water isn't wet and people hit other people's fists with their faces, where nonsense makes sense. Legitimate mental health issues are serious, and we ought to have guaranteed health care in this country, including full mental health care. But it is neither morally acceptable nor, for that matter, psychologically healthy to use it as an excuse to kill.

Deliberately delivering an infant prematurely already deprives the infant of the healthiest means of development that takes place in the womb and of course, could be fatal. I can say only while sighing, if for whatever reason, while freeing herself from the imposition of carrying a fetus the client would be more depressed if she could not also kill her viable, sentient child and had to (God forbid) let it live to be enveloped into the loving arms of an elated adopting family, frankly, that person is contemptible. That is selfishness to the furthest extreme. If that is not "depraved indifference to human life," what the hell would be? There are some close calls in life. This is not one of them. The worth of the child easily overrules the mother's quote right to kill it on its way into the world.

TFB replies: We are not talking about a child. We are talking about blastocysts, zygotes, embryos and fetuses. In my commentary I addressed at great length this distinction. If you are going to make this statement, I suggest you at least review the basis for this distinction (so I don't have to repeat everything) and then address those points ... if you can. On my main website it is at:
http://www.wordwiz72.com/choice.html#moral

FB: ACTUAL PRACTICE

For the past several years, Kansas' Department of Health and Environment# has required and attempted to amass formal abortion statistical documentation from the entire state's abortion providers. Its information is exceptionally helpful because it puts a spotlight on late-abortion. It specifically wants to know how many postviability abortions are taking place and how they are being justified. Kansas law bans postviability abortions except in cases to save the woman's life or protect her health. A newer law also bans partial-birth abortion with the same exceptions but is clearer in that specifically defines health to include mental health as well as physical health.

The department's Center for Health and Environmental Statistics puts out an annual overview of the results.

<"http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/hci/absumm.html">.

Looking down at section 15a) the number of viable fetuses aborted in 1998, '99, '00 and '01 respectively, were 91, 302, 380 and 395. Of those performed in 1998 and '99 the number performed by the partial-birth procedure were 58 and 182 respectively. (Apparently because of its stigma Tiller stopped doing late abortions by that method after 1999.) Not one of these abortions were done to save the woman's life. Instead they were necessary, we are told by the abortion clinics, to protect the woman's health.

TFB replies: Well, most medical doctors don't actually use the term "partial-birth" which is a pejorative term concocted by opponents. The correct term is dilation and extraction (or D&X). But notice the gentle sleight of hand here ... previously we were talking about TIME ... when during pregnancy an abortion occurs. Now you have made a not-so-subtle shift: you no longer mention when during these pregnancies the D&X procedures were used. D&X can be used any time from the early second trimester. In the majority of cases, the D&X procedure is used on non-viable fetuses, and is used primarily for the convenience as a less intrusive (to the mother) means of removing the fetal body. D&X is not the same as "late term." One is a method or technique; the other refers to when during the pregnancy it is performed.

FB: Section 18a) asks of those 182 late abortions, whether the procedure was done to protect the woman's physical health or mental health. Not a one was indicated to preserve physical health. All of them were justified by the mental health exception. Remember that these partial-birth abortions were done on viable children; that is, they were merely a subsection of the 302 postviability abortions that year.

TFB replies: Most of them were NOT done for the mother's PHYSICAL health. But again you have this devious sleight of hand ... if you have a situation where the baby is deformed or has a condition what will most likely cause it to die later in the pregnancy or soon after birth, there is no threat at all to the woman's PHYSICAL health. If the only choice is between the MOTHER'S physical or mental health, and the reason is because she does not wish to suffer the consequences of probable late-term miscarraige, stillbirth or death from a fatal condition soon after, or just having a grossly deformed baby (more subtle disabilities such as blindness, deafness, etc., are not identifiable at that point, though exposure to thalidomide or German measles might be consider valid grounds), then I guess the only box you could mark between those two would be "physical" but that has more to do with the inadequacy of the question that anything problematic about the answer.

FB: And since there is no reason mental health issues would be reserved for the partial-birth method (there is nothing unique about PBA that makes it preferable for psychological health preservation) we can be assured all or virtually all of the total 302 were also done because murder was thought to be legitimate psychiatric therapy.

TFB replies: If that technique allows for easier removal of the uterine contents, then it is less invasive and less traumatic for the woman. Assuming, of course, a mind-set that doesn't believe the woman's "mental health" requires a good dose of guilt for something some people consider so wicked.

FB: There are several other well-worn arguments supporting late abortion -- the slippery-slope argument, the contention that private medical practice is outside the bounds of the law, and others -- and they, too, are weak.

TFB replies: I assume that if you are going to respond to my site you will address arguments I have raised, not those of others which I have not made. I can't imagine anyone holding the serious belief that private medical practice is outside the bounds of the law. If anyone does hold such a radical, extremist view, I would reject it out of hand. I also reject extremist views such as those who support early-term infanticide. Once it is out of the woman's body, the bodily sovereignty argument simply has no basis whatsoever and now you are weighing the interests of the child against ... well, there is no countervailing claim.

FB: At the expense of sounding arrogant, I daresay you will be unable to (satisfactorily) answer these arguments.

TFB replies: I suppose the operative word here is "satisfactorily" -- well, I am quite satisfied with my responses. I believe you are the one who got disposed of here.

Fastbreakers continues on 1-23-03:

Two misrepresentations must be unmuddied to begin with. One: calling people who oppose legal abortion anti-choice is misleading and offensive. It would be downright silly to call someone who opposed laws for murder anti-choice because they oppose the choice to murder.

TFB replies: People who wish to outlaw abortion are AGAINST allowing the legal CHOICE to have an abortion. "Anti" means "Against" so "anti-choice" is perfectly accurate in this context. If we were discussing whether or not the choice to kill autonomous human persons not occupying your body should be legalized, then in that differing context I would proudly put myself on the side of those opposing that choice.

FB: You do not think abortion is the equivalent to the killing of a born person, but that's what they really believe.

TFB replies: I understand that. But even if they were correct that it is the equivalent of a born person, it still would not be murder. There are many forms of killing born persons that are not murder: accident, military action, lawful execution, manslaughter, self-defense, etc., where there is not a clear and malicious intent lacking sufficient mitigating conditions. The fact that the zygote/embryo/fetus occupies the woman's body, her removal of it from inside her own body would put even the killing of "the equivalent of a born person" in a different class of killing than murder. Not even all homicide is "murder." If the fetus were equivalent to a born person, then it would probably be closer to something like self defense. Of course, the very clear evidence is that the fetus is nothing near the equivalent of a born person; though it (like eggs and sperms, other human life forms) has the potential to develop into that if a number of contingencies are satisfied.

FB: They may be wrong, but to call them anti-choice is to deliberately obscure their sincerity. Many of them deeply and sincerely believe (with some good reason) in the full humanity of the unborn, and to characterize them as anti-choice mocks their sincerity.

TFB replies: They are wrong, but calling them "anti-choice" is merely an accurate description of their position on this issue, and frames the issue in terms of their views about whether or not the woman should have that legal choice. As I said, in a different context, I would proudly proclaim myself as being opposed to the legal "choice" to murder, rape, steal, etc. My very accurate description does nothing to minimize or "obscure" their sincerity, which is not in doubt and has not at all been called into question.

FB: Mother Teresa believed as much, decried Roe v. Wade and believed abortion was not a personal choice society should allow. What an anti-choice extremist, right?

TFB replies: First of all, despite her many wonderful attributes of devotion and selflessness, Mother Teresa was not perfect. Despite her great and loving service to poor people, she did nothing to address the causes of poverty or of women's suffering (and openly acknowledged that it wasn't her role to do so), and did not even believe that birth control was a desirable means of preventing unwanted pregnancies. I believe she was a good, saintly woman who meant well, but I respectfully disagree with her belief that abortion was immoral.
Second, you misrepresent her position. I recall reading of an event where Mother Teresa (a woman of few words but great actions) spoke briefly. The next speaker commented on her strong belief that abortion should be outlawed. She immediately chastised him. She said she believed abortion to be evil and immoral. But she did not take positions on legal issues or public policy and did not know if passing laws against abortion would lead to fewer abortions or make the situation worse, so she had not taken the position he (like you) attributed to her. Now perhaps in other venues she made contradictory statements. I do know she opposed abortion (and birth control) on moral grounds and I disagree with her. I also know that at least once she also took the position that she did not know enough to discuss the issue on legal or public policy grounds. Please be more careful.

FB: Many pro-life (the appropriate term) people are motivated by deep love of humanity, not an opposition to freedom. To call all people who oppose legal abortion anti-choice implicitly suggests the that they are all motivated out of the latter and not out of the former and as such is an implicit lie -- not to mention obnoxious propagandizing.

TFB replies: But the fact remains that, just as I oppose the freedom to murder innocent people whose lives are not infringing you in any way, they do oppose this freedom and I am accurate in reporting that.
And your term "pro-life" is far more ambiguous. If a person opposes a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, but supports the death penalty, military invasions and eats the meat of sentient and autonomous mammals and birds, that person does not have a valid claim of being "pro-life" just because they support a position of "life" in the singular instance of zygotes, embryos and fetuses occupying the most private parts of another person's body.

FB: So to reinforce how silly it is to call people anti-choice, I will refer to people who are pro-choice as pro-death. They do, in fact, advocate the right to kill, don't they? (Pro-choicers don't advocate the right to kill all humans or non-human animals, but that is exactly the point -- pro-lifers don't oppose freedom of choice in all areas either. Both labels -- anti-choice and pro-death -- are infantile and misleading.)

TFB replies: The difference is that YOUR silly description is NOT accurate. Those who are pro-choice are NOT "pro-abortion" therefore they cannot be described as pro-death. They neither support nor oppose abortion. They support the right of each woman to decide WHETHER she will be pregnant or not. So they are equally pro-life or pro-death since they support either option, as long as the woman decides. Pro-death would be like the Chinese Communists who mandate forced abortions in some cases. They are just like you in forcing their choice on the woman, but they only differ from you in which choice they would mandate.
We who are pro-choice do not advocate abortion. We advocate the right to make either choice. However, based on your description, we vegetarians would have a lot better shot at calling meat-eaters "pro-death." Since the cows, pigs, chickens and turkeys meat eaters kill to satisfy their totally unnecessary lust for artery-clogging animal fat have far more sentience or consciousness than the embryos lost in most abortions, and since those animals are not occupying your bodies (at least before you kill and eat them), they are in no way infringing you and you have no claim on their autonomous lives. I could make a far stronger case that "meat is murder" than that "abortion is murder," however since I don't equate these animals with humans I remain pro-choice on that issue, too.

FB: Second misrepresentation: If you are going to rag on people for not reading your essay carefully enough, be consistent and read my email carefully. To quote you as I mentioned late-term partial birth abortion: "But notice the gentle sleight of hand here ... previously we were talking about TIME ... when during pregnancy an abortion occurs. Now you have made a not-so-subtle shift: you no longer mention when during these pregnancies the D&X procedures were used."

Untrue. I described the PBA count as a SUBSET of the number of VIABLE fetuses aborted. Those numbers, ONLY counted partial birth abortions on viable fetuses. Non-viable PBAs are not counted at all. Later I clearly say "these partial-birth abortions were done on viable children." Check the website if you want; it is only talking about postviability D&X procedures. Later in your response you refer to me making "another devious slight of hand," as if I were being devious in this case, whereas the truth is you did not read carefully. I did no such thing. So now you know. The Kansas law makes the distinction between late-term D&X procedures and non-D&X late-term procedures. I did only insofar as it was useful deciphering the data.

TFB replies: You persist with your semantic bait and switch. I was talking about third trimester, late-term abortion. You started talking about the same, then switched to "viable" fetuses, citing the Kansas website. The Kansas site you cited referred to "viable" and to abortions after 22 weeks (well within the second trimester). The term "viable" is NOT synonymous with third trimester; many fetuses in the second trimester are still considered "viable." And it is important to note that the Kansas cite YOU provided reported NO "partial birth" abortions in 2000 or 2001, which are the most recent years shown. When it shows the number of viable fetuses aborted (not necessarily third term), that is a subset of a section that only covers abortions after 22 weeks, which is a very tiny subset of total abortions. Naturally, you don't want to discuss the real word of actual abortions, where very few are done that late, because the example of how most abortions actually occur doesn't have the same "shock value" as the very rare exceptions or hypothetical examples you need to rely on since the real world offers you nothing credible on which to support your extreme and hypothetical conclusions.

FB: On the distinction between morality and law:You also say of my analysis Thomson analogy: "...you fail to recognize the rather relevant distinction between the moral argument and the legal argument." Of course there is a difference between law and morality. Some things are immoral but should not be punished by law (lying is often immoral but lying is rarely illegal, nor should the law be fining or imprisoning for every lie) and some things ought to be illegal for the sake of order but are not necessarily immoral.

BUT ... What the government should or should not make a person do IS a matter of ethics and justice. Is it right or wrong for the government to punish such and such? The philosophy of law, what society may justly demand of its citizens, these are 'ought' questions. You would certainly agree it is WRONG for the government to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. These are, in fact, moral questions as well as legal ones. TFB: "I would say that the person also has the absolute right to make that choice, even if it is one my moral beliefs wouldn't allow me to make." You are making a distinction where there is no difference. By asserting someone's right to do something, you are in fact making a moral claim. In the terminology of ethics, you are making an argument from 'deontological' (rights-based) principles of morality.

TFB replies: Much of law is based on ethics and moral values. I don't have a problem with that, nor did I ever say otherwise. My point is that the woman's legal right is based on the fact that she is the one who owns the body, whether or not the embryo or fetus is a human person. I also note that the moral claim for the right to abort is rooted in the lack of personhood. If the moral objection to abortion is shown to be groundless, then the claim of any right to infringe the woman's bodily sovereignty is also groundless and the legal basis for outlawing abortion becomes moot.

FB: BODILY AUTONOMY, AGAIN. I don't believe you ever fully addressed my refutation of the bodily-autonomy argument. You talked about other things, such as asking "let's say you were the driver of a car, at fault in an accident that caused the kidney ailment. Should you then have the legal and/or moral right to disconnect?" This is an interesting but irrelevant detour and misses the point of the kidney-patient analogy. The point is that it is conceded that, YES -- no law should force a person to use their body to keep another person alive, BUT that is different from KILLING a person. TFB: "Frankly, I don't see much moral distinction between your active and passive involvement; both cause exactly the same result."

There is a tremendous difference (moral and legal) between passive and active involvement. Yes, in theory, and on one level, someone who disconnects from a patient, refuses to donate blood, a kidney etc. someone who was kidnapped and comes-to in the operating room with a surgeon hovering above him or her with a bone saw about to take marrow against the person's will who pushes the surgeon away, each of these people passively 'causes' the patient's death. NOT HELPING, on one level, has the "exact same result," as you say, as active killing: The other person dies. Same outcome notwithstanding, none of those cases are morally or legally the same as homicide: stabbings, shootings, fatal beatings, poisonings etc. (and arguably, abortion). These are active killings and seriously immoral (and illegal, and should be illegal). And if a fetus is a person, then abortion is homicide -- not withdrawing life-support. This is where the bodily-autonomy argument falls down.

TFB replies: Legally there is a huge difference between the passive and the active. Morally there is almost none. I do believe that standing by and watching someone die without making an effort to save them, refusing to donate compatible blood or marrow (kidney is different; there is a substantial irreplaceable loss to the donor) is morally akin to stabbing or shooting them.

So, you did not answer one of my questions: let's say you remove the embryo or fetus intact. Fully alive. No active step taken to actually kill it, although it might die shortly thereafter from passive neglect. Would you support the woman's right to remove the intact, living embryo or fetus?

FB: You also at several points inject personhood into the discussion where I am still talking about bodily-autonomy. The bodily-sovereignty claim maintains that even ASSUMING a fetus IS a person, it is STILL ought to be legally permissible to abort it. In other words, the bodily-autonomy, or bodily-sovereignty position as you call it, claims to supercede the personhood issue entirely. It does no good for me to argue about personhood to you and others who claim that even if the fetus is a person, the bodily-autonomy argument still prevails. (In fact, it is the other way around: the personhood issue supercedes the bodily autonomy issue.) But before I could even discuss personhood, the B-A argument would have to be removed first. Maybe I didn't make clear, but I was assuming, specifically for the sake of dealing with the bodily-autonomy argument, that the conceptus was a person.

Now say you want to perform an abortion in the following way: Either the cervix is artificially dilated or uterine contractions are induced chemically, the fetus is pulled out of the womb, the placenta is burst and the umbilical chord sliced. The fetus, born alive, suffocates because of immature lungs. Is that killing or refusing to support life? The fetus that was naturally healthy, due to forcible intervention, is now dying. You tell me. This Abortion initiated a terminal condition, whereas refusing a kidney simply refuses to interfere with nature. It does nothing at all.

TFB replies: The fetus was healthy and alive when it was removed. The abortion did not initiate a terminal condition. It removed the source of the oxygen supply, which just happened to be dependent on a lengthy connection to someone else's body. I prefer NOT to use the example of a kidney donor because there is more of a permanent, irreplaceable loss to the donor which is not equivalent. Better is the example of blood or marrow. The recipient of blood, marrow (or kidney) does not stake a claim to reside inside your body for nine months. All the woman has done is remove the occupant from the most private part of her body because she doesn't want it there. I would absolutely say that if you somehow (as someone whose personhood is not questioned) got in a situation where you ended up inside the most private part of a woman's body and were wholly dependent on remaining inside her body for MONTHS of life support, and she didn't want you there, and removing you would result in your death, I would still maintain her legal right to do so.

I also noted in my commentary and repeatedly in my various dialogues that while I have no reservations about first trimester abortions where I reject claims of personhood for the embryo, I would consider it immoral for a healthy woman to abort a healthy fetus in the third trimester solely for reasons of convenience, though I would allow her that legal right. My granting her legal right would be based on her bodily sovereignty. My lack of moral qualms in the first trimester is based on the lack of personhood. Of course, we both know that the reality is that 3rd trimester abortions are extremely rare and almost always due to an extreme condition such as fetal deformity or severe fetal medical emergency -- physical distress to the fetus (not the woman). I am also not confident that personhood begins any time before birth, when the first breath is taken and the PERSON begins his or her own autonomous process of experience interacting with the surrounding environment. But I have sufficient reservation to allow moral considerations in the third trimester.

FB: Now even if you believe the live birth above is closer to refusing-to-help than killing, keep that thought, because it doesn't matter, because even withdrawing support from your children, as we shall see, is roughly equivalent when it deals with your children.

You're right about adoption. The fact that the mother and father may put a born child up for adoption is ONE reason to kill one's born child is immoral. It is not the main reason. Imagine if adoption were not an option. Two parents search exhaustively for anyone willing or able to take their child because they do not want to use their bodies to take care of the child. (Again, I'm talking about literally using one's body. Calories are expended when the body is used to earn money to take care of the child and as the child's caretaker.) They have careers, aspirations, they want to spend the fruits of their physical labor doing things other than keeping the child alive. But no one is available to take the child. Do they throw up their hands and say, "No one should be forced to keep another alive, so its ok for me to kill the baby so we can pursue other things using my body" No. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

TFB replies: Adoption is not an option in many cases today. Mothers call up Children's Protective Services and say they can't continue to take care of the child. The child is taken by CPS and either placed in temporary foster care or taken to a center that cares for children who have not been placed in such care yet (often because the children already have severe emotional problems result in society expecting incapable parents to stick with it longer than they should). Some people just can't handle children; they shouldn't have had them in the first place, but, well, they listened to a "sidewalk counselor" who talked them out of solving the problem back when it was just a "potential." It is no longer just an individual matter of the woman's bodily sovereignty now, since the child is not inside of her body. It becomes a social issue, and the role of a compassionate society is to provide the resources for dealing with children when incapable parents can't do it. But those options remain possibilities because the child is not inside her body. And having another person inside your body is far more intrusive than "calories expended to earn money." Your equating of the two is demeaning to what women actually go through. But of course, that intrusion is one that only women have to confront, so that is not a serious concern for you. It is easy to minimize the intrusion that someone else has to suffer as long as you know it will never apply to you.

FB: If you believe that those parents in the above case actually do have the right to kill their children OR withdraw nourishment from a healthy child so it dies in her crib, starved, emaciated, too-dehydrated to even cry, well, God save us, I don't know what to say, our conceptual schemes are so far off for us that we're barely speaking the same language.

So the B-A argument or B-S argument fails. The fact remains, unmoved: Even if there is no one else who can keep the child alive, parents may not legally, may not morally kill their child to regain free use of their own bodies.

TFB replies: Painting these as the only alternatives is simplistic, naive and inflammatory. I noted above more realistic alternatives, which occur in the real world every day.

FB: Let's continue to assume, just for the sake of deconstructing the bodily-autonomy argument, that a postviability fetus is a person. I pointed out that postviability, the mother can evict the tenant without killing the tenant.

TFB replies: I would be amenable to consideration of alternatives that favor premature live delivery if the fetus is healthy. As noted, however, in almost all cases of 3rd term abortion, it is not the MOTHER who has physical distress, but the fetus (though that may well cause the mother the reported mental distress in terminating a pregnancy that was previously wanted).

FB: You agreed that if live birth is "not substantially more intrusive to the adult human person who owns the body," it is the better option. Now you're talking about body ownership again. To repeat: if parent's can use their bodies to keep their children alive, and if no one else can do that, PARENTS are morally and should be legally prohibited from KILLING their child TO AVOID that responsibility. Might a live birth be more intrusive for the mother than smashing the head of her child before delivering it? BOO HOO. Not a license for murder. If sacrifices are required as an alternative to killing the child, the parents should be compelled to make them. If by intrusive you mean harmful to the woman's physical health, remember, self-defense justifies killing morally and legally if one believes his or her life is at risk, not inflict what is known to be a non-terminal wound. (This can get a little sketchy. Most people would excuse a woman who kills someone raping her even if she didn't believe her life was at risk. But to compare a babies' delivery to a rapist's terrorist assault would only highlight the pro-death camp's radical extremism and inhumanity towards innocent human life.)

TFB replies: Baloney. If a man were raping a woman, and was occupying the most private part of her body, and the only way she could get him out resulted in his death, I can assure you that she would never be charged, and even if she were she would never be found guilty. And this assumes that she only believed she would be raped, not killed, though that is never a certainty, is it. Just as carrying a pregnancy to full term increases the risk of complications, INCLUDING DEATH, and so a woman clearly can claim valid fear of death from continuing an unwanted pregnancy, while those who want to be pregnant accept that as a risk worth getting what they want.

FB: THE MORAL INSIGNIFICANCE OF BIRTH

Concerning postviability abortions, again. TFB: "At the point when the embryo/fetus is no longer inside the woman's body, then the woman's bodily sovereignty issues is simply no longer relevant." (They aren't relevant in the first place. as I've established) Put another way in your main essay, "In other settings, a few inches might mean the difference between being arrested for trespassing and enjoying your own yard on your side of the fence." My lord that is a goofy thing to say. A few inches can mean a lot and it can mean a little, depending on totally different kinds of scenarios. If you want to play with the trespassing analogy, to make it an applicable analogy, if we consider one's land and one's body both forms of property, your abortion argument amounts to saying that a few inches outside of your yard, the trespasser is absolutely protected, but in it, since it's the integrity of your property that's at stake, you may KILL HIM! That's a dizzying, staggering non sequitor, but it is nonetheless the appropriate use of a trespassing analogy to your way of thinking.

The idea that being legally disposable and absolutely legally protected is separated by a few inches is absurd on its face. To say that one action one foot to the right is murder, the most serious crime in the Bible, the most serious crime in the laws of man, but one foot to the left is an "absolute right" is psychotic and perverse. Might passing a formerly viable, dead fetus through the birth canal be preferable for the mother than passing a live, independently viable fetus? Sigh. Again: BOO HOO. Not a license for murder.

To repeat: There are some close calls in life. This is not one of them. The worth and dignity of the third-trimester baby overrules the mother's quote right to kill it on its way into the world.

TFB replies: That is not equivalent, because the equivalent value of LAND versus the body is what is different. If he is inches inside your property you do have a claim of trespass and a remedy commensurate with the value of land infringement. One's body is far more sacrosanct, and the remedies can be far more severe. You occupy the most private part of a woman's body and, yes, if she has to kill you to get you out, then "good bye cruel world." My point with the trespass analogy (since it obviously went right over your head) was that small distances do make a difference, NOT to equate the significance of land trespass with bodily trespass.

FB: To that TFB replied "We are not talking about a child. We're talking about blastocysts, zygotes, embryos and fetuses." I was specifically talking about babies in the third trimester (I mentioned a 26, 28, 30 and 32 week old fetuses).

TFB replies: Yes, about 4 of every 10,000 abortions are in the 3rd trimester. They are hardly typical, either in why they are done or the emotional impact of them. But those who oppose a woman's right to choose abortion always dwell on these because describing typical abortions is not nearly so dramatic.

FB: At a certain point "It's a baby" becomes not anti-choice (ugh) propaganda but a matter of undeniable fact. To anyone who has seen a prematurely born baby (that would look exactly the same way inside the womb) to anyone who has seen electroencephalographs of babies born prematurely in the late 6th, 7th and definitely 8th and 9th month, to anyone who is knowledgeable about the variety of research that has been done showing evidence of dynamic late-term fetus responses to external stimuli, at this point the fetus is a baby. (Whether a baby is a person is not the question I am addressing. The point is, by any reasonable person's understanding of what a baby is, a third-trimester fetus is a baby.)

If you switch from speaking about the ethics of abortion and go on to repeat the drumbeat about 'it only in circumstances of severe fetal abnormality' etc. etc. you're dodging the point. I'm talking in principle and hypothetically about healthy fetuses.

TFB replies: I would repeat my acknowledgment that it would be my opinion that to abort a healthy fetus by a healthy woman in the third trimester would likely be immoral, and I would be amenable to considering a requirement that if it is feasible to do so that the healthy third trimester fetus be delivered alive and intact and placed for adoption. Of course, this applies to an insignificant fraction of cases and I'm not even sure there are any cases where this would apply. People who can't offer anything relevant to real world experience seem to demonstrate a great fondness for extreme examples (the rare late-term cases) and hypotheticals. But since you're talking "hypothetically" I'll respond in kind, though I prefer to discuss the issue in ways that apply to the real world, and can appreciate why you'd prefer to avoid that and go off on your "hypotheticals."

FB: (And aborting healthy fetuses into the ninth month of pregnancy for elective reasons IS legal, and it undoubtedly does happen. I cannot claim that those several hundred documented viable abortions done for mental health reasons executed healthy fetuses or terminal fetuses, but you also cannot claim that everyone of those fetuses was terminal. You in fact say "almost all" of late abortions happen in cases of pregnancies gone wrong etc., suggesting healthy late-term fetuses are sometimes aborted. But always remember, late abortion is legal. See the Doe v. Bolton.)

TFB replies: "it undoubtedly does happen" is a pretty poor substitute for an actual example. I doubt you can even find a doctor or facility that would be willing to abort a healthy nine-month fetus from a healthy woman. Legal or not, it just does not happen.

FB: TFB said "I can't imagine anyone holding the serious belief that private medical practice is outside the bounds of the law. If anyone does hold such a radical, extremist view, I would reject it out of hand"Now think about it, pro-death extremists all the time try to fling the privacy shield over all abortion decisions. You throw the word LAWMAKER or POLITICIAN around as if it were a slur and the some use word DOCTOR is often meant to imply unquestionable sage.

TFB replies: If you are going to claim that *I* use words a certain way, please cite a specific example of where I have done this. God knows I've provided you with ample material to search :-)

FB: You will hear ad nauseam from militant pro-death extremists that "abortion is a medical procedure and congress has no business in it." Very few people do much more than an absolute minimum of thinking, and many people do hold such radical extremist views.

TFB replies: There is a big difference between saying that abortion is a medical decision and is a protected right of personal privacy, and saying that "private medical practice is outside the bounds of the law." It is absolutely appropriate for medical boards to establish, enforceable as a matter of law, medical standards of hygiene, sanitation, medical treatment procedures, etc., for abortions as with any other medical procedure. And if a doctor botches up an abortion and hurts the woman, he should be liable for malpractice. Abortion should be the same as any other medical procedure. Someone getting heart bypass surgery gains comfort and confidence in knowing that the doctor is required to adhere to certain standards, and that he (or his heirs) has remedies if the doctor fails (and these remedies motivate the doctor to adhere to those standards). The heart patient does NOT have to go to counseling first and be lectured that fixing hearts is "playing god" and countermanding god's decisions about when it is time for us to "go home" or look at gruesome pictures of open-heart surgery. The heart patient does get exposed to rational, factual information about risks and benefits and signs a consent form. I have no objection to that standard of consumer protection being offered to women patients who choose abortion. But to say that this means that medical practice is "outside the bounds" of legal regulation is just absolutely absurd. The CHOICE to accept the risks of heart surgery are the patient's; the CHOICE to have an abortion is also the private, personal choice of the woman.

FB: One last issue. PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION. TFB said: "Well, most medical doctors don't actually use the term "partial-birth" which is a pejorative term concocted by opponents. The correct term is dilation and extraction (or D&X)."

I am always amused when people say that term partial- birth abortion is inappropriate. Pro-death extremists bark out that line like trained mynah birds. Would pro-death extremists prefer it if the procedure were described in more detail? Hmmmmmm? Nothing misleading about that. Many surgeries are gross and graphic. But most of them don't involve sucking a perfectly formed face inside-out and turning a living, delicately formed brain into a very dead mushy, bloody slurry. Another clinical name for the procedure is "intrauterine cranial decompression" ( intact dilation and evacuation or intact D&E is a third designation.) Perhaps opponents of the horrific procedure would do better to use that term. The cold, bloodless nature of it almost makes it more frightening. I also recognize that the push to ban on partial-birth abortion is largely political. It fails to ban the equally gruesome and more common mid- and late-term abortion technique, the D&E dismemberment type. But that simply means that the partial-birth abortion ban does not do enough. D&X and D&E procedures are in some cases being done on live fetuses (not killed intravenously beforehand) that are pushing the biological frontier of PAIN PERCEPTION. It was once thought that even newborns were not sentient. Now it is known that third trimester fetuses have sensations and the more that is known, the more neurophysiologists wonder that fetuses may feel pain much earlier than once thought. The brutality of these procedures is an issue in its own right, aside from whether or not the fetus is a person.

Here's a little documentation on the issue. PAY ATTENTION TO THE LAST LINE.U. S. News and World Report conducted in depth interviews with 18 of the 79 clinics around the country that perform abortions after 20 weeks. "In most post-20-week abortions performed by clinics U.S. News interviewed, physicians first kill the fetus by cutting the umbilical cord or injecting digoxin (a heart medication) or other lethal agents to stop the fetal heartbeat. Then the fetus is removed [crushed or cut into pieces]... But one of the three clinics that use the D&X approach and four that perform the D&E dismemberment procedure do not kill the fetus first." (emphasis added, "When Abortions Come Late in Pregnancy" January 19, 1998)

TFB replies: 20 weeks is still second trimester and, as I noted on my main website, prior to the onset of measurable EEG brain waves. This is a developing mass of brain tissue; it is the the living, functioning brain of a human person.

FB: Now hear a bit on the subject of fetal pain. "According to reports, the head the government-appointed Medical Research Council at Edinburgh University in the United Kingdom said a fetus was absolutely aware of pain by 24 weeks and perhaps as early as 20 weeks - earlier than the previously accepted 26 weeks." Baeucar, Kelly O. "Fetal study adds fuel to the late-term abortion debate." Fox News Online. 31 August 2001. <http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,33437,00.html>.

TFB replies: Fox News Online!!! Fox News, owned by right-wing mogul Rupert Murdoch, is an example of extreme, right wing tabloid "journalism." It is not a credible source on any contested issue, and especially not for technical data on abortion. I cited university studies directly, and that was as to the onset of BRAINWAIVES, certainly a minimal precursor to sentience. The real debate about the capacity to feel pain (a far higher standard of consciousness) is about whether newborns can even feel pain! Sorry, but there is simply no credible evidence that pain exists during pregnancy, especially in the first two trimesters. If you are talking about recognizing and avoiding negative stimuli, well even eggs and sperms and amebas can do that.

FB: Eighty percent of respondents in a study of British neuroscientists said that the fetus should be given pain relief after 11 weeks of development. "Growing Pains." The London Telegraph. 26 Jun 2001.

TFB replies: Notice they just suggested offering "pain relief" -- not saying they actually feel anything remotely similar to pain, but more likely to a)play it safe; b)assuage concerns of the mother; c)slow metabolic responses and involuntary avoidance reactions to make surgery easier.

FB: Sandra Day O'Conner calling partial-birth abortion "rather gruesome," had to produce a mirthless smirk in me. Rather? Oh is it rather gruesome, Sandra? I'm glad you're here to tell us these things. These abortions done on live fetuses stress and strain the ability of the human language to anywhere near adequately convey horror.

I could be accused of incendiary language or trying to provoke sentiment in place of a rational argument. Not really. It's just that some things call for appropriate disgust and revulsion. Inflammatory? Sometimes certain things SHOULD inflame. I like (liberal prochoice writer) Richard Cohen's observation about partial birth abortion. "I shudder at those who do not shudder."

TFB replies: Sandra Day O'Conner and Richard Cohen are expressing individual, non-medical opinions as conservative Republicans.

FB: Society owes non-human animals the protection from severe abuse and torture, even if they are "owned" by people who would allow such brutality as a pro-death extremist might say a fetus is "owned." If a society cannot protect humans the same way then God have mercy on our souls.

TFB replies: We agree that society owes protection to non-human animals, which clearly have sentience, consciousness and the capacity to feel pain, and are biologically autonomous and in no way infringe humans. And we should absolutely protect ALL human persons even moreso. However, the mere existence of human LIFE is not the same as being a human PERSON. Eggs and sperms are human life with the potential to become a human person if a number of variable occur. The same is true for the embryo and fetus, though they are further down the path. They are human life with the potential to become human persons if a number of contingencies materialize. If so, we'll have a person. If not, they'll never know the difference or care in the slightest.

FB: There are many other discussable issues. I disagree with some of your critiques of the personhood-begins-at-conception theory, but agree with much of what you say as well.

TFB replies: Wow, now that gives me something specific to sink my teeth into. Of course, is you can't establish that the uterine content is even a person, then you have absolutely no standing (moral or legal) to oppose a woman's right to reproductive self-determination. I don't agree that the legal issue (bodily sovereignty) comes first. If you don't establish personhood, the bodily sovereignty issue doesn't matter. But the reverse is not true: failure to establish bodily sovereignty as a stand-alone issue does not eliminate the personhood issue. Therefore, the personhood issue is primal, and the bodily sovereignty issue is a fallback position. When both issues are combined, that the woman owns and controls her body, and that the rival claimant is not even a person (and certainly does not raise the issue of a claim itself), there is simply no credible basis for opposing a woman's right to choose whether she wants to be pregnant or not.

NOTE: Because the dialogue with Fastbreakers continues at great length, and is primarily focused on the very narrow and specific issue of very late-term abortions, the remainder of this dialogue has been moved to its own continuation page, at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/ch-fstbrk-forum.html. Those with a strong interest in this area of the issue are welcome to click on the link and pursue it further, while those who are not can continue reading dialogues with other readers on other dimensions of the issue.

Dialogue with Jude
Jude writes on 10-11-02:

Did you know that St.Peter was the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church? just open the attachment then click on Peter and read the history.
Through my studies I have concluded that Jesus founded the Roman Catholic Church, and all that she teaches was given directly to her by Christ himself including the sanctity of human life before during and after conception! Jeremiah 1:5

TFB replies: You are mistaken about Jeremiah 1:5. This verse has NOTHING to do with abortion. I addressed this in my commentary. Obviously you did not read it, since you didn't respond to my actual point. Since you missed it first time around, I'll repeat it. Read more carefully this time:

This scripture has traditionally been used by Protestants to show god's foreknowledge of long future events, and by Mormons to show a pre-mortal existence. Only recently have very desperate anti-choice extremists interpreted this in the context of abortion. Look at the wording of this scripture, "Before I formed you in the womb...." It is talking about before birth, before viability .... BEFORE CONCEPTION! Is that referring to sperms and eggs? It has no relevance to abortion whatsoever; but if it shows reverence to POTENTIAL life, it actually applies as much to sperms and eggs as to embryos, since it is before conception. And even if it were a reference to embryonic life (it isn't), no one denies the existence of embryonic life with the potential to become a human being -- and, once again, it would have been a perfect opportunity to condemn abortion, but.... In context, Jeremiah writes in chapter one specifically about his own calling as a prophet -- that it was known by god before he was born or even conceived. He was appointed, chosen, selected, ordained - whatever. He is talking about the fact that God knew of his calling long before he existed as a real or potential human. Prior to Roe v. Wade, most Bible scholars interpreted this as a reference to God's foreknowledge of the future, and not until recently did the scripture ever enter into the abortion debates. And this reference to God's foreknowledge of the future also suggest that He should have been able to foresee the modern controversy about abortion, yet he included absolutely no reference to this subject whatsoever!

J: Listen to the most ancient Christian church (Roman Catholic) and you will hear God condemning abortion!

TFB replies: Some early Catholic writers did condemn abortion. The Bible does not. For those who believe the Bible to be God's Word, abortion simply is not condemned anywhere in the Bible. And for those who do not believe the Bible to be God's Word, it doesn't matter and we can't go around passing laws based on religion.

Additional reply by Dr. William F. Harrison (wharri3365@cox-internet.com) on 10-28-02:

I thought it interesting that Jude thinks "only the Catholic Church has stood firm on its stance against abortion from the beginning" and that we "should listen to the most ancient Christian church and you will hear the voice of God speaking." I wonder if Jude is at all familiar with the rather checkered history of the Catholic Church speaking as God. For instance, does he know that until the mid 18th century, the Catholic Church did not condemn abortion until quickening? (And of course, well over 95% of all elective abortions occur before quickening, so was the Church, speaking as God, wrong then and right now. If so, this is a very wishy washy sort of deity, or at the very least one with a macabre sense of humor.) Does he know that the Church "speaking as God" ordered the death of Giordano Bruno and condemned Galileo for beliefs which the Church now admits are true? (Does he even know that his church, the Catholic Church, did not concede that the earth circles the sun until well over 20 years after men had walked on the moon?) Does he not know that the supposedly "infallible" doctrine of the Church has been proven all too fallible almost too many times to count? Does he know that Acton's aphorism that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" was in response to Pius IX's hubristic arrogation of infallibility to himself and succeeding popes? In other words, do you think Jude is a complete fool or just a poor sap who has been grossly misinformed by the arrogant teachings of his priest, his bishop and his Pope, all claiming to speak for God? wfh

Jude continues later on 10-11-02:

I never said that verse was about abortion I said it was about the Sanctity of human life before during and after conception!

TFB replies: I understand your position about "the sanctity of life" during and after conception, though I respectfully disagree with it as regards a woman's right to reproductive self determination. I am puzzled, however, by what you mean by the "sanctity of life" when you say "before conception." Do males commit murder if they allow sperms (which are alive and human, but before conception) to suffer mass extinction because a "wet dream" occurred? Do females commit murder every time they have a monthly period and allow one of their eggs (each a human life before conception) to die unfertilized? Must every single sperm be made to join an egg to avoid disrespect for human life before conception? Did God make a mistake when he created a biology of reproduction in which the number of sperms produced outnumber the quantity of eggs produced by a factor of several billion to one, making such a matchup impossible?

Do you share God's "sanctity of life" for all the life he created? Do you eat meat? Do you spray insects? Do you allow inoculations against disease-causing bacteria, each of which is an individual life that happens to occupy your body against your will ... or does that not apply when it is your body being infringed instead of a woman's?

J: And as far as what the Protestants have to say im not interested because they don't all teach the same things on the matter. Only the Roman Catholic Church has stood firm on its stance against abortion from the beginning!

TFB replies: And I suppose that the Protestants, of their many varieties, and also the Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and non-believers similarly reject any attempt on your part to justify laws that restrict their defense of their bodies based on your religious opinions and authorities which they equally do not accept.

Jude continues on 12-27-02:

The only reason that I can think of why people are pro-choice is because they probably never took a good look at aborted babies.
Open the attachment, scroll down and take a good long look at what your advocating.
Im convinced that if you do it will surly change your mind. And if not then God help you!!!

TFB replies: I almost never open attached files but did so in this case because the file type seemed consistent, and to confirm my suspicions. You cannot address this issue honestly, so you must use fraud and deception to fool people into accepting your position based on religious extremism and the desire to control the most private parts of women's bodies.

The pictures you provided were all of extremely late-term fetuses. Although you had a section on your site to address late-term abortion, these pictures were provided as if they are typical pictures of normal abortions. Why are you afraid of telling people the truth about these pictures? As you know, only about four out of every TEN THOUSAND abortions is done in the third trimester, and virtually all of those are terminations of WANTED pregnancies by devastated couples, as a result of medical emergencies or complications. As you also must know, 89% of all abortions occur in the first trimester, so in a typical abortion (which occurs most commonly at six or seven weeks) the fetus looks nothing like what is in your dishonest pictures. But of course, if you showed a realistic, life-sized image of those abortions, it wouldn't really bother most people who are capable of telling the difference between an embryo and a baby. For the rare cases that do resemble those pictures, the parents have already suffered enough the loss of a wanted pregnancy, and your cruel display of their tragic losses shows how mean-spirited and heartless you really are.

As for what I am "advocating" ... you also have to misrepresent our position, because again the truth is so unpalatable to you. I do NOT *advocate* abortion. I am pro-CHOICE, NOT pro-abortion. I advocate letting a woman choose whether to be pregnant or not. Pro-abortion means you want more abortions. This may apply to the communist Chinese and their policies of mandatory abortions, which take away a woman's freedom to control her body ... exactly the same as your position which does the same thing, in the opposite direction.

Jude continues on 12-28-02:

So you say Im dishonest? I say your confused! and I'll pray for you.

TFB replies: The difference is: I said something and backed it up with facts and reasons. You "say" something but, not surprisingly, are completely unable to find one single fact or reason to support your claim for why I am wrong or you are right. If YOU can't find a single reason to challenge what I wrote, then I'll accept that as an affirmation that I am not wrong. Thank you for this tacit gesture of agreement. Of course, this means you are perpetuating your fraudulent website in the full knowledge of your deceptive dishonesty.

Dialogue with Catholic
Catholic writes on 9-13-02:

I recently started attending an all-girls Catholic high school. I am not catholic, so I have had some difficulties. My largest one, though, came when I said that outlawing abortion would be a violation of our basic human rights. You would have thought that I suggested we sacrifice a teacher on the altar at mass. Everyone in the room stared at me in shock. Apparently I am now a murderer.
Your website is absolutely wonderful. The way it presents things is very well thought out, and your arguments are brilliant. It is nice to be reminded that I'm neither evil nor part of a minority group for being pro-choice.

TFB replies: I appreciate your positive support, and your willingness to explore the issue for yourself instead of what others try to spoon-feed to you. Clearly the Catholic church takes an official position opposing women's rights of reproductive self-determination (as with many other anti-woman positions). And as I noted in my webpage with extensive documentary support, this position is not rooted at all in the Bible, but in the writings and rantings of male monks cloistered away from the real world of suffering and choices that women have been forced by men to endure for many millennia.

Continue to challenge and push your classmates to broaden their thinking. Within a very few years, as they confront the realities of real-world living, many of them will join the growing ranks of pro-choice Catholics, and even those who reject the choice of abortion for themselves will come to recognize the right of others (especially those with different beliefs) to make different choices.

Dialogue with Chris
Chris writes on 7-27-02:

I'm pretty sure I've offered you my definition of personhood previously, but I'd like to do so again, just in case..... :-): "A person is a being which has the active capacity to reason and freely-will."

TFB replies: I certainly recall our previous dialogue from several years ago, and since it was so long ago will consider this a new thread with your comments on "personhood." Your definition comes close, but fails to achieve the standard of a definition that does apply to everything post-fertilization while specifically not applying to everything pre-fertilization (eggs and sperms) while also not applying to beings or creatures of other non-human species. Following that, your conclusions derived from your definition cannot be logically or factually concluded from the definition you provided.

First I will re-state my own definition of person (from my website): "...holding a preponderance of the ACTUAL features, functions and processes out of which the experience of human personhood (including consciousness, sentience, experience, memory, self-awareness/instrospection, etc.) arises, as well as a preponderance of the actual physical features (arms, legs, internal organs, brain) which in their usual operation generate such experiences and processes." I believe that this definition applies to human beings, but not to any animal, including dolphins or chimpanzees which may have some measure of intelligence, thought and reason, and certainly the capacity to "freely-will," but have not yet demonstrated the capacity for self-awareness and introspection to the extent of a human person. In contrast, a human infant may also not have these functions fully extant yet, but does have all of the ACTUAL features and functions out of which these will derive, while a first-trimester embryo has none of these actual features or functions, but merely the potentiality of possibly developing them some time in the future, if a number of contingencies are satisfied (just like the egg and sperm, but further down the path toward realization of that potentiality). I should also make it clear that I believe that many animals such as primates and dolphins do come sufficiently close to the attributes of personhood that many of the issues of the rights derived from personhood should apply to them.

Your definition would also apply to many species of birds and mammals which have shown some extent of reasoning abilities and which certainly exercise free will (which even insects can demonstrate).

C: According to this definition, sperm cells and egg cells do not *of themselves* have the capacity to reason and freely-will... while they might be said to have such a capacity, it is passive, and not active. An embryo, on the other hand, does have the capacity to reason and freely-will *of itself*, and so is a person.

TFB replies: Again, notwithstanding the inadequacy of your definition itself, this conclusion does not at all follow from it. I would certainly agree that sperm and egg cells have no capacity whatsoever to reason or exercise free will. However I also can see no manifestation whatsoever that any embryo prior to the onset of brain waves at the very earliest can demonstrate anything remotely akin to the capacity for reason or free will. If you believe that human personhood begins at fertilization, please provide the factual basis for how the newly-fertilized blastocyst can be perceived to demonstrate any kind of reason or free will that is in any way different than the egg or sperm.

C: The crucial point here (and the one I feel I haven't made with you previously) is that to have an active capacity IS an actual attribute, not a potential one. I *actually* have the capacity to reason and freely-will, even when asleep or in a reversable coma. That capacity is an attribute which I ACTUALLY have.

TFB replies: Yes, YOU "actually" have the capacity to reason and freely will, even when you are not using them. You have the actual features and functions out of which personhood arises, even when they are not being used. An embryo does not have these features and functions at all, nor the actual capacity, at any time, of reason or free will. It has the potential to develop those if a number of contingencies are satisfied.

C: So too, does the embryo have this ACTUAL attribute of personhood. It is not a "potential person", it is an actual person, because it has -- from the first moment it exists -- *the* attribute of personhood: the active capacity to reason & freely-will.

TFB replies: I do not agree at all that the embryo has this "actual" attribute of personhood. There is no time or condition, ever, under which the embryo, as an embryo, will ever have or manifest reason or free will. It does not have the features or functions out of which they arise but only the potential for them in the future. In contrast, a baby that has been born may not function yet at a very high cognitive level, but it has all of the ACTUAL features and functions out of which the highest levels of cognitive processes operate, and merely needs to exercise them, develop them, and build on levels of perception and experience which are very actively engaged.

Now I challenge you to revise your definition of "person" in a way that would include embryos but not higher animals, while excluding sperms and eggs, and then show that it applies factually to these conditions.

Dialogue with Tommy
Tommy writes on 6-18-02:

The reasons I am asking these kinds of questions [regarding the right of children to sue parents if they withhold parental consent] are due to the fact that ACLU legal briefs protesting parental involvement laws would be stronger and more compelling if they included signed statements (about a 100 or so) from women whose constitutional rights were violated by parents who used their authority to block their right to choose and how this was done, or how judges exercised their power by refusing bypass petitions due to their personal beliefs and not on the merits of the case at bar. Specific stories with names. Specific examples of things parents can do and have done. In addition these statements should include the aftermath. How the violation of being forced to bear a child against their will has impacted their lives. Judges will find it much harder to trivialize the harm done to women impacted by these laws.

TFB replies: The requirements in the legal world are quite different from general persuasion regarding philosophy, morality, religion, etc., where non-binding opinions are bantered about in the "marketplace of ideas." I do not know what would be required to win a successful legal case, but since we are dealing with issues of law (decided by judges and appellate courts) rather than issues of fact (which are decided by juries in trial courts only), I presume that the last word on any such "requirements" would come from the Supreme Court. With the current makeup of the Court (and the prospects of judicial appointment from an unelected president selected by them) I am not sure I would consider this the most favorable time to be pushing such issues.

T: For example, if I wanted to block my daughter from having an abortion in Wisconsin I could do the following:

a. Refuse to consent to the procedure.
b. Threaten reprisals against my relatives if they give consent. (Wisconsin allows relatives over 25 to consent). This threat would not carry a great deal of weight in my family.
c. Resind permission for my daughter to drive (attack her mobility), (would not be effective since she lives one mile from a planned parenthood which performs abortions (lucky for her), two miles from the county courthouse, and my ex-wife would probably have an issue with this).
d. Contact her school and give explicit instructions that she is not to be excused from campus for any reason. (Try to prevent her from attending her bypass hearing at the courthouse).
e. Attend her bypass hearing to contest her petition.
f. Have her work permit cancelled (attack her ability to pay for the procedure by taking her job away from her).
g. Lock her in her room on the day of her appointment. (At worst I get slapped on the wrist for false imprisonment).
h. Threaten to disown her if she goes through with it.
i. Threaten her with bodily harm.
j. Tell her friends and others in the community so that her abortion is common knowledge.
k. Tell the parish priest thus cutting her off from ever getting married in the church.
l. Etc, Etc.

TFB replies: Some of the actions on your list would be legal and some would already be illegal under current law, including in Wisconsin, such as threatening reprisals against relatives for lawful acts, threatening bodily harm, etc. Those that are already illegal could serve as the basis for lawsuits under existing law. As to those that are legal, but for which there would be long-term personal, emotional and financial consequences, I would agree that even if the acts themselves are legal, that by blocking the legal abortion the parents have assumed financial responsibility for all such consequences and should therefore be liable to the daughter. That is my opinion. But I'm no lawyer and have no idea as to the legal aspects of this argument.

T: Why is it that there is no literature on this area? Is it too personal to share? This is a war. Those who are not prepared to defend their rights will lose them.

TFB replies: I don't know of any such literature, but that doesn't mean there isn't any. If you find something, pass it along. I think you have raised some fascinating and important issues that need to be pursued by those who have the legal resources and strategies for doing so.

Dialogue with Ryan
Ryan writes on 6-13-02:

After visting your website I found that your statements that life begins before conception and that an 1st trimester embryo is in the same category as human gemetes are incorrect.

TFB replies: You accurately quote my statement that "life begins before conception," but I'm puzzled by which portion of the statement "life begins before conception" you find incorrect. Is it that you do not believe sperms and eggs are alive? Is it that you do not agree that the state of a separate sperm and separate egg occurs before conception? Where is there any error in what I said?

Your allegation that I claimed "that an 1st trimester embryo is in the same category as human gametes" is not an accurate quote. In fact, I never said any such thing. You simply made this up. In fact, here is one of the statements I actually did make, in the same portion of my website that addresses life and conception: "...an important milestone is clearly passed on the occasion of an egg (ovum) being fertilized by a sperm...." I clearly note that, at conception, there is a change; a difference. I do not say that the newly-formed blastocyst is the "same" as the gametes that joined to form it. I acknowledge an important difference. Where you seem to get confused (and mistaken) is that I distinguished between "life" and "personhood." This is an important distinction. Notwithstanding the significant change that occurs at fertilization, I noted that as to the attributes of human PERSONHOOD, which I addressed at extensive length, the one-celled blastocyst is more similar to the one-celled sperm or one-celled egg than to an actual baby. The one-celled organisms have none of the actual characteristics of a human person but do have the potential to grow into the actuality of a human person if a number of contingencies are met, while the baby actually has all of the actual characteristics of a human person, although in a primitive form.

R: The physical beginining our body begins after conception and then goes through many stages of life including the development of the body of the embyro/fetus and so on to childhood-adulthood-death.

TFB replies: You are only addressing the existence of a specific, genetically-identifiable individual human organism. You are not addressing human LIFE itself (which began before fertilization) and you are not addressing at all the conditions of human PERSONHOOD. And by the way, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, child, teen, young adult, mature adult, senior citizen may all be phases of that organism's life, but the last phase you cited, "death," is, uh, not a phase of life :-)

R: You are correct in saying that sperm and eggs are potential human beings, but you are wrong in saying that embyros are also potential human beings. Fertilized eggs and embryos are human beings for many reasons.

TFB replies: None of your comments addressed what constitutes a human PERSON. Not a human "life" or a human "being" but a human PERSON. Everything you have mentioned could apply the same to bacteria, insects, rats or the fish, chicken and cows you non-vegetarians kill to satisfy your unnecessary lust for artery-clogging animal fat, except that the name of the species is different. Unless you want to say that human persons are no different than germs or bugs or rats (an assertion I would find repugnant and vehemently disagree with) then you have to address the attributes that make human PERSONS qualitatively different than animals. I have addressed that; you have not.

R: We are all created when the egg and sperm combine, no matter if their are 45,46, or 47 chromosomes. You cannot say that our lives physically began before conception because we did not exist before the two combined.

TFB replies: I certainly can say that "our lives physically began before conception" because it is true. The sperm was alive. The egg was alive. They joined, causing an important change, but my LIFE began before that change in the form of that egg and sperm (though the onset of human personhood would begin much later). While the change that occurred at that joining was vital and significant, and one of many that would be necessary on the path from becoming a potential person to an actual person, that change was not the "beginning" of my life, since the egg and sperm which came together were already alive.

R: A single sperm and single egg are not a fertilized egg.

TFB replies: This is true. But all three are alive. And all three are human. And all three are human life. Two of those existed as human LIFE BEFORE CONCEPTION.

R: Its like combining paint colors, if you combine blue paint and yellow paint you will get green paint. Now the yellow paint and the blue paint alone are not the green paint. The yellow paint and the blue paint each effect the world in a different way by their characteristics, likewise the green paint effects the world differently than the yellow or blue paint.

TFB replies: Certainly when you combine blue paint and yellow paint an important change has occurred. But before that joining they were all paint. And the origin of that batch of green paint began in the batches of yellow and blue paint that formed it. If there were some kind of hazardous chemical wrongly found in the green paint, you can bet that it would be traced back to either the yellow or the blue paint and clearly it would have to be said that the green paint is a continuation of the blue and yellow that came together to form it, though we would all agree that a substantive and important change has occurred.

However, in all cases, the blue paint or the yellow paint or the green paint, would still be paint. Not a painting or work of art, but just paint. All of them would have the POTENTIAL to become a painting (or perhaps just be used to paint a fence). This is an excellent example. I'll have to remember it; perhaps adapt it and fit it into my web page. Thanks.

R: We can further see the differences between gemetes and embryos which prove that our bodies begin after conception by looking at contraception and abortion. Contraception is used to prevent gemetes from combining and thus prevent the creation of a fertilized egg and the establishment of pregnancy. Abortion on the otherhand is used to kill the fertlized egg/embyro/fetus in order to prevent the unwanted burden of a new born child which is developing from that fertilized egg/embyro/fetus.

TFB replies: Some forms of contraception, such as spermicidal jellies or foams, act by KILLING the sperm. Would you call them "murder" because they "kill a human life"? On the other hand, some forms of very early abortion act by blocking the implantation of the embryo into the uterus, not by killing it directly, similar to the way in which some forms of birth control prevent eggs from meeting sperms, thus causing them to die and be wasted. I don't really the distinction you are trying to concoct.

R: We can also see the difference between gemetes and embryos from the words of Margaret Sanger:
"Mothers, Can you afford to have a large family? Do you want any more children? If not, why do you have them? Do not kill. Do not take life, but prevent. Safe, harmless information can be obtained by trained nurses." (Planned Parenthood of North Texas: http://www.ppnt.org/ (About Us: History) http://www.ppnt.org/default.asp?pageid=67)

Obviously, Ms. Sanger is encouraging women to prevent pregancies by using contraception and then they will not have to kill their unborn children through abortion.

TFB replies: It is no secret that Margaret Sanger opposed abortion. She also supported views of eugenics that many today would find offensive. She was not a saint. She was a progressive feminist leader who founded Planned Parenthood to promote and de-stigmatize contraception, which was a noble achievement. This does not mean that those who value that important contribution have to agree with all her positions. The fact that she said something does not make it true or valid. Despite disagreeing with some of her opinions, most progressives today would still agree that she was a brilliant social visionary, way ahead of her time. In her day, contraception was the leading edge of reproductive self-determination, but abortion may have just been too progressive even for her. But she does raise one important point: those who opposed contraception in her day (and who still do today) actually promote more abortions because of the increase in unwanted pregnancies. The best approach is a comprehensive strategy of empowering women, which (in the words of Bill Clinton) would render abortion "safe, legal and rare."

R: The vary fact that plannedparenthood is trying to prevent abortions through the use of contraception demonstrates that they consider contraception a better and easier option for women than abortion.

TFB replies: Well, duh. I think every pro-choice person agrees that it is better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to have an abortion. But the availability of safe, legal abortion is an important backup.

R: But why should their be any difficulty at all in choosing abortion, if an embyro is a potential life like sperm or eggs what is the difference between putting on a condom or taking the pill and having an abortion?

TFB replies: Embryos, eggs and sperms are ALL actual life, not potential life. They are all alive. All three of them are also potential human persons, lacking ANY of the actual attributes of human personhood. The reason prevention is better than cure has nothing to do with the morality of the situation, but simply because the process is simpler and more convenient. The moral question may shift somewhat later in pregnancy as the fetus does begin to gradually acquire some of the attributes of actual personhood, but in the first trimester it is simply a matter of which is more practical, convenient and easier. I do know one friend who had FOUR first-trimester abortions. She didn't want to take a pill -- a hormonal drug -- and found other methods of birth control too awkward or inconvenient. While most women would probably disagree, in her opinion multiple abortion was preferable. Her body, her choice.

R: And finally if you go to the Plannedparenthoods website and look under pregnancy you will see the following tips on good prenatal health: ... [prenatal suggestions omitted] ...
They encourage women to start preparing for pregnancy before they get pregnant so that they will be healthy enough to have a healthy pregnancy after she becomes pregnant. Not because the healthier she is the healthier the egg and sperm will be and therefore the healthier the embryo. You can see this by the fact that they say from embryo, to fetus, to the birth of your child. They don't say from egg to sperm and then to embryo and so on. This shows that they realize that neither the sperm nor egg alone are not the body that will develop into a new born baby. Again proving that the entity that develops into a new born baby did not exist before conception.

TFB replies: What exactly is your point here? A woman has a right to choose whether or not she wants to have a pregnancy. Period. If she doesn't want a pregnancy she can prevent it; if that fails for any reason, or she just changes her mind, she can terminate an unwanted pregnancy. But if her choice is to create a human person, and to carry a pregnancy to term, then she should do so responsibly. The gametes, zygotes, embryos and fetuses have no rights nor any interests, nor the capacity for such. But if you intentionally plan to turn those potentialities into actualities, then the responsibility is not to the gametes, zygotes, embryos or fetuses which is not a person and has not capacity for things like rights or interests, but to the actual future baby that results (intentionally) from that potential. There is no contradiction in these positions at all. Choose whether or not to be pregnant, but be responsible in whichever choice you make.

Dialogue with Sam
Sam writes on 6-12-02:

After reading your segment on late term abortions, I have to agree with most of what you said.

TFB replies: Thank you for taking the time to write with your thoughtful comments. You raise some interesting points worthy of consideration.

Sam: Many pro-life organizations are now focusing their attention on outlawing late term abortions, however the facts show that late term abortions are extremely rare and in most cases occur only when something goes wrong during pregnancy.

TFB replies: We agree. These were key points I emphasized in that portion of my web page, at http://www.wordwiz72.com/choice.html#lateterm.

Sam: I believe that the reason pro-life organizations are targeting late term abortions is because they are trying to ideologically attack the foundations of abortion rights.

TFB replies: There may be some validity to this point, but I perceive that the reason they emphasize this point is rooted in a fundamental dishonesty and ideological "bait-and-switch" type of fraud. Most people (including me) would have some moral qualms about dismembering a healthy seven- or eight-month fetus, with most of the actual parts and processes of a human person formed and operational, just because a healthy woman changed her mind. While I would find that morally problematic, I would also still allow the woman that right, since it is still her body that is being occupied. But I would still find it morally troubling and not a moral choice that I personally could live with.

As you rightly note, most (if not all) third trimester abortions are NOT by a healthy woman aborting a healthy fetus. As you also correctly note, they are also very rare, only about four out of every 10,000 abortions and they occur because something went wrong with a wanted pregnancy. They are not typical, and using them as symbols of a general opposition to abortion is dishonest and fraudulent. Holding up pictures of dismembered late-term abortions is not an accurate representation of a first trimester abortion, when most occur, and when the embryo is still very tiny, the body parts are not yet formed or operational, and there are not even active brain waves yet.

Where I have some problem with your statement is your conclusion that this attacks "the foundations of abortion rights." As I note extensively throughout the various areas of my web site, the "foundations" of women's reproductive self-determination are rooted first in her right to biological autonomy (her body, her choice as to whether she wants it occupied or not) which is not undermined by late term abortion, and second the lack of human personhood of the embryo, which clearly applies to first trimester abortions and is much more questionable in late term abortions.

Sam: They pose a theoretical question to all Americans Should women be allowed to have an abortion even if her unborn child is capable of surviving outside the womb and there are no physical reasons not to continue the pregnancy?

TFB replies: Their question is not "theoretical." They want it to be imposed by force of law in actuality, not in theory.

Sam: Would you personally stop an eight month old healthy baby from being killed by the D&X procedure? Or would you accept that women's choice to do what she wills with her own body?

TFB replies: As I noted, *I* "personally" could not make that choice in late term (third trimester) for a healthy woman to abort a healthy fetus (though that is not at all the question actually being faced in such cases, as we both have already noted). But the issue is not what you or I "personally" could do. It is what should be mandated by force of law onto every other woman, who may have different beliefs and standards. And it is still her body. We would not mandate that YOU be forced to have your body infringed by the forced donation of blood or marrow to save the life of another human being (such as an adult) whose personhood is not even questioned, so how could we mandate by force of law that a woman use her body to keep another alive, even if it is a person? We might both agree that "personally" our moral beliefs would mandate giving blood, marrow or keeping a healthy fetus alive, but that is not the question involved in this issue.

Sam: Despite what most pro-lifer's would have us believe this is the extreme end of the abortion spectrum, the other extreme being the most early abortions.

TFB replies: Yes, those who oppose even first trimester (or even "morning after") abortions have clearly taken the issue to the extreme. There are many people who are pro-choice for first trimester abortions, when personhood can not be feasibly ascribed, but who would oppose late term abortions, mostly because they do not understand that these late term abortions involve wanted pregnancies that developed tragic complications.

Sam: However late term abortions force us to look at the fact that embyro's and fetuses are the beginings of all of our lives.

TFB replies: But as I noted in several areas of my website, the same could also be said of sperms and eggs, yet no one loses any sleep over the billions of sperms wasted in a single male ejaculation or the eggs lost every single menstrual month that a female fails to "achieve" pregnancy.

Sam: Why else would the choice of abortion, especially late term abortion, be so difficult for women to make.

TFB replies: The reason the choice of a late term abortion (of a healthy fetus by a healthy woman, if you can actually find a real-world example of this happening) would be difficult to make is because of the humanity of the late-term fetus, which becomes an issue only very rarely, and is completely irrelevant to most abortions, occurring in the first trimester.

Sam: Even you, Mr. or Ms. Barans who have heard and seen an abortion realize within your inner being that the choice of abortion is that of death. The death of a potential human being is nevertheless death.

TFB replies: I addressed at great length the distinction between "life" and "personhood" in the portion of my webpage at http://www.wordwiz72.com/choice.html#moral. For those who choose to eat meat (I don't), that too is the choice of death. For those who apply insecticides to their gardens or inoculate themselves against bacteria, that also is a choice of death. The issue is not death or life, but of personhood, and of the owner of the body being occupied to make choices about the terms of such occupation.

Sam: Perhaps if pro-lifer's stop ignoring the pain and suffering of women which leads them to avoid future pain and suffering they could better understand the reason why people fight to protect choice.

TFB replies: I think for pro-lifers it is more complicated than that. They will not be able to see the pain and suffering of women with unwanted pregnancies until they can get through the ideological and moralistic dogma which is, itself, rooted in fallacies and internally inconsistent with what they claim as the sources of their beliefs.

Sam: Likewise if pro-choicer's stop ignoring the fact that abortion is the death of a human being and not just amputating a finger they might begin to realize why pro-lifers' so strongly oppose abortion.

TFB replies: First trimester abortions kill a human life (as does the death of a sperm or egg) but not a human person. I addressed the difference between a life and a person at great length. Late term abortion (as actually practiced) kills a fetus that has a major deformity or complication that compromises its normal, healthy birth.

Sam: The enemy of both those who are pro-choice and pro-life is ignorance.

TFB replies: So you are saying that EVERYONE (both pro-life and pro-choice) is ignorant? What would be your example of someone who is NOT ignorant in regard to this issue?

Sam: By overcoming our ignorance we can hope to build a bridge over the abyss of sorrow that is the abortion issue. So I hope that you Mr./Mrs. Barans strive to better your understanding of why pro-lifer's truly oppose abortion. Then you will be able to make your website even better and help educate people as to why they should support or oppose abortion.

TFB replies: I see very few instances of "sorrow" resulting from those who freely, and without coercion, exercise the right to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. I see great sorrow resulting from those who try to force their values and beliefs onto others by force of law. I do not agree that the issue is "ignorance." The issue is freedom of choice and the respect to allow others the right to make different choices for themselves than we might make for ourselves. Pro-CHOICE people are exactly that: they want women to be free to make their own personal choices, but also respect the rights of those with different beliefs to make a different CHOICE. No one that I know of wants to force anyone to have an abortion who doesn't want one; no one I know wants to bring the tyranny of forced abortion (as in Communist China) to this country.

Thanks again for taking the time to write.

Dialogue with Phil
Phil writes on 4-3-02:

I'd be interested in the responses of pro-lifers to the following:

When you spell out all that is implied by the belief that a human embryo a few days old is already a child or person with a right to life, you discover an implication that almost no one will accept and which therefore makes the truth of that belief questionable.

It's a fact well known to obstetricians and gynecologists that roughly one-half or more of all conceived embryos are miscarried.* Many of these miscarriages go unnoticed, because they occur soon after conception and without symptoms, and often the next menstrual period is not missed.

Given the roughly 50% probability of miscarriage, if you truly believe that an embryo a few days old is a child or person with a right to life, logic compels you to conclude that engaging in natural human reproduction is wrong because it is too unsafe -- it kills one-half of all unborn children. It's like selling airline tickets when you have information that half the flights will end in fatal crashes.

Claiming that not you but nature is responsible for the miscarriages does not absolve you of responsibility. In the airline analogy you could not claim that not directly causing the crashes absolves you of responsibility for the fatalities. You could have chosen to warn the passengers or to not sell them tickets. Likewise, to prevent the deaths by miscarriage you can choose celebacy. Unfortunately, you now face a dilemma. To avoid creating children who will go to their deaths unborn, you must refrain from trying to have any children at all.

Pointing out that the miscarriages are nature's way of purging chromosomal abnormalities is no way around this difficulty. Having a chromosomal abnormality does not deprive one of a right to life. Chromosomal abnormalities are not the only cause of early miscarriages. Some of the miscarried embryos are normal, and the miscarriages are caused by uterine abnormalities or immune system rejections.

We go on having childen despite the miscarriages, and we don't think anyone should feel guilty about them. But if you take this attitude, you can't take seriously the idea that an early embryo is a child or person with a right to life.

* REFERENCES

1. Cytogenetic Studies Of Spontaneous Miscarriages: A Seven Year Study To Compare Significance Of Primary vs. Secondary Culture Methods For Assessment Of Fetal Karyotype Yield And Maternal Cell Contamination. Rushdia Z. Yusuf, M.B.,B.S. and Rizwan Naeem, M.D. Early Pregnancy. 2001 Apr;5(2):121-31. http://www.earlypregnancy.org/EPBM/EPBM%20V/Vol.%20V,%20Num%202/EPBM1308. htm

It is estimated that about sixty to seventy percent of human conceptions are lost through the course of gestation (Dejmek, 1992). The majority of these losses occur prior to implantation or within the first four weeks of pregnancy (Wilcox, 1988). An estimated fifteen to twenty five percent of spontaneous miscarriages (SM) occur between the 6th and 28th weeks of gestation as clinically recognized abortions (French, 1967) making pregnancy loss a considerable clinical and economical issue."

2. Understanding Miscarriage. D. Ashley Hill, M.D. http://www.obgyn.net/women/um/um001.htm

"...most people are unaware that a high number of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage, usually during the first few weeks of pregnancy." "Miscarriages are unfortunately very common. Most people are unaware that up to 1/2 of all early pregnancies end as a miscarriage! Many of these are so early the patient does not even know she is pregnant. Others cause symptoms, such as cramping, bleeding, or perhaps the passage of clots from the vagina. Most researchers agree that about 20% of all pregnancies end up as the type of miscarriage that causes symptoms, while the rest are 'silent' and do not cause significant symptoms."

3. Verena T. Valley, M.D. and Loretta Jackson-Williams, M.D., Ph.D. Missed Abortion. http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic7.htm

"In the US: Many pregnancies are not viable, with an estimated loss of 50% before the first missed menstrual period. These pregnancies usually are not clinically recognized."

TFB replies: Not surprisingly, I think you bring up some excellent and important points. Certainly the fact that so many early pregnancies result in spontaneous (natural) abortion suggests that nature does not place much more value on newly-fertilized zygotes or embryos than on sperms and eggs. For those who equate "nature" with "God" it also suggests that God is far less troubled by abortion than those who bomb abortion clinics in his/her name and who kill doctors in the name of "life."

However, just to play devil's advocate, even as a completely pro-choice person who rejects any idea of embryonic personhood, I quickly thought of a possible opposing challenge to your analogy to the airlines. You compare accepting pregnancies where many will end up in spontaneous abortions to being: "like selling airline tickets when you have information that half the flights will end in fatal crashes." But this is not a complete example. If the choice is between flying with a 50% risk of crashing and survival by not flying then accepting the 50% risk is unconscionably homicidal. But those who oppose abortion would say that if we rejected all such risk entirely and had no pregnancy at all, then there would also be no life at all. They would be more likely to compare it to an airlift evacuation situation: peaceful and innocent civilians are being invaded by vicious people who seek to exterminate their race. They have no military power against the invaders, and when the invaders arrive they will kill 100% of the men, women and children in the village. Their only chance of escape is in an airlift, but the hazards of battle bring in the risk that 50% of those flying out will be shot down. The choice therefore is between zero surviving life and 50% surviving life.

While you provide important information about miscarriage rates and how nature (or god) seems to be little concerned with abortion, I think the airplane example is weak (though interesting).

Phil continues on 4-3-02:

You must have a much better idea than I how the anti-abortion folks would respond. However, maybe I'm just groggy, but I don't see the parallels in the airlift analogy. Who/what do the exterminating invaders correspond to?

TFB replies: The way I understood YOUR original version of the analogy, it is that since half of all pregnancies that begin naturally are terminated naturally, that embarking on the journey of pregnancy is like selling tickets on an airline where half the passengers will die in crashes. Therefore the conclusion I get from your example is that you claim the point of pro-lifers could be reduced to something as ridiculous as saying that we shouldn't even start pregnancies at all since half of them are doomed. What I am saying is that, while I appreciate the point about how cheaply nature or God treat early pregnancies, reducing their point in this way doesn't "fly" (so to speak) because they would easily (it sprang to my mind immediately and I'm definitely not anti-choice) see a bigger dimension to the argument: maybe half the pregnancies that start would fail naturally, but if no pregnancies start at all then there is a total extermination of the race and cessation of the entire chain of life. So to pick up this dimension that your example misses is where I came up with the "exterminating invaders." In other words, while your point is correct that selling tickets on airlines when half the passengers can expect to die is not logical, it quickly makes much more sense when the option is that if we don't sell the tickets and save as many as we can, the entire village will die.

Phil: Can the airline ticket analogy be strengthened by adding the following? I am placed in a situation where either I send people on a journey with a 50% risk of dying, or else I let the race die out. By the first alternative I violate "thou shalt not kill." By the second I violate "be fruitful and multiply," although I do not kill any currently living individuals.

TFB replies: This might strengthen it somewhat, but if I'm a Bible-thumper I would have two responses:
First, if you sell the tickets to people who otherwise will die you are not killing them, but giving them a chance to escape someone (or some thing) that is.
Second, the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is part of a general law the applicability of which is repeatedly restated through the Old and New Testaments. In contrast, the command to "be fruitful and multiply" is a very specific command to a specific group of people, given only twice in the Bible: once to Adam and Eve at the start of the human race (Gen 1:28), and again to Noah and his family when they are the only human survivors after the Great Flood (Gen 9:7). In both of these specific situations, there is a severe population shortage. This is a specific direction to specific individuals for their unique and specific situation, akin to commanding a specific individual to go on a mission to China -- right for that person but not a universal command for everyone to do. Clearly the context is to build up the human species. The command has been obeyed. The earth is filled with people. And since abortion has been known and practiced by all peoples in all times (whether legal or not), we can see that abortion has hardly stood in the way of our species being "fruitful".

Phil: By assuming the personhood of the embryo, I have no good choices. I am guilty either way. I don't know which is the greater evil. Does it matter?

TFB replies: By assuming the personhood of the embryo, one confuses the fact of LIFE (whether, in human form, as sperm, egg, embryo or child) with the specific attributes of PERSONHOOD that distinguish us from other LIFE forms. I resent having the value of my humanity reduced to the equivalence of any other LIFE form.

Chris (prior correspondent) sends a reply to Phil on 7-26-02:

I visited your site recently, and noticed comments written to you from Phil in April of this year. Phil wonders how pro-lifers would respond to the argument (granting his statistics for the moment) that "engaging in natural human reproduction is wrong because it is too unsafe -- it kills one-half of all unborn children."

If you're in any contact with Phil, let him know how I responded: natural human reproduction is completely unsafe... every human being who comes to exist because of it (not just half) dies. Not a very good success rate, if you ask me ;-)

TFB replies: Clever observation, but at a more serious level it fails to consider several critical points.

First, you have got to know that I'm going to point out the difference between human "life" and human "personhood" -- and that what dies between fertilization and early pregnancy is human "life" (as are eggs, sperms and many forms of cell tissue) but has none of the ACTUAL qualities of an actual human person, but merely the POTENTIAL of possibly developing them in the future. This is especially true of the many fertilizatons that occur but which die very early without even becoming attached to the uterine lining.

Second, even if someone does actually consider the embryonic fertilized material to be a human person, there is a real difference between "someone" dying at the start of their expected life span, before they have had any actual experiences of being a person (and I would reiterate before they have the capacity for experiencing personhood because they are not persons yet), and at the end of a reasonable life span when they have actually lived life and experienced personhood.

Third, if one considers "risk" in purely relative terms, and considers "risk" to the one PERSON involved whose personhood is not in question -- the pregnant woman -- it is not only obvious but supported by extensive statistical evidence that carrying a pregnancy to full term is far more hazardous than abortion. The only reason to bring it up at all is that sometimes the objection to abortion is shrouded in a rather silly argument that it is risky to the woman.

Dialogue with J.P.
J.P. writes on 3-22-02:

The arguments in favor of a woman's right to abort her baby completely miss this fact: THE REAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE OCCURS WHEN A WOMAN CHOOSES TO HAVE SEX IN THE FIRST PLACE.

TFB replies: So then, do you or do you not allow a woman the right to choose an abortion if her pregnancy is the result of rape, incest or failed birth control, all situations in which she clearly made the CHOICE before sex not to have a pregnancy, and the pregnancy that resulted was contrary to that choice. If you would NOT permit abortion under such conditions, then please explain exactly why you chose to make this point since it would be irrelevant to your position? Or are you just playing games?

Second, as I noted in depth in my web page (you obviously blurted out a hasty response to something you hadn't even read), the consent to SEX is completely different than the consent to PREGNANCY. I won't repeat the entire portion from my web page here (but would suggest you actually read it if you wish to pursue this point so you don't make yourself look even sillier than you already have), but I'll provide a brief excerpt that makes the point: "Some might argue that a woman has "consented" to pregnancy by inviting the embryo into her body by virtue of engaging in the sex act. (Such a statement automatically accepts the right of reproductive choice in the event of rape, incest or failed birth control where no such valid consent can be imputed.) Consent to sexual intercourse is NOT the same as consent to pregnancy. They are two different things. Even a completely voluntary sex act would not necessarily mean she invited the embryo into her body, since only a small percentage of sex acts result in pregnancy. The POSSIBILITY of an outcome is very different than its INTENT. If a person rides in a car, knowing there is the POSSIBILITY of an accident, should that person be denied the right to receive medical care, auto repairs or reimbursement from a responsible party if they have an accident ... since they KNEW that was a POSSIBLE outcome? A woman who has sex only invites the sharing of sexual pleasure, not the embryo that accidentally resulted. And EVEN IF she got pregnant on purpose, there is no reason to say that you can't change your mind or correct a mistake, especially when it is the rights of an actual human person against those of non-sentient cell tissue with the potential of becoming a person ... if the woman wants it."

JP: If her choice results in an unwanted pregnancy, she now has two free wills to consider; hers and her baby's. It can be safely assumed that an unborn baby wants to be born, so now it's a matter of who wins out, the mother or the baby. Since the woman already made her free choice, To Have Sex, she has forfeited in favor of the baby.

TFB replies: This is simply uneducated and SILLY. She has free will and wants and desires because SHE is a human person. I discussed extensively why a zygote/embryo is a potential human person, but lacking the ACTUAL attributes that distinguish us from other life forms, it is not a human person -- since you didn't even make the feeblest attempt to respond to those points they stand unchallenged. The zygote/embryo does not have "free will" because it lacks the capacity for consciousness or sentience out of which free will arises. Not only can it NOT "be safely assumed that an unborn baby wants to be born" the exact opposite can be easily confirmed (without silly assumptions) by the fact that the lack of consciousness or sentience means that the zygote or embryo has nothing remotely similar to "wants" of any kind. When it is removed from the woman it feels nothing and has no kind of negative experience of any kind. To equate the "free will" and "wants" of an actual human person who has them with the early-developing cells that might someday grow into them is absurd; the fact that some people actually take such a position seriously is a cruel injustice.

JP: If, however, the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy, then proceed in favor the mother's chances for survival. Arguments in favor of abortion for convenience sake or to spare the mother the consequences of her choice to have sex, are arguments in favor of murder, pure and simple.

TFB replies: All of us do many things for "convenience" and to avoid the "consequences" of a choice we regret (or that was imposed on us). There is nothing wrong with that. So your simplistic and entirely unfounded assertion that an act of convenience is "murder, pure and simple" is immature and childish. Again I discussed the meaning of "murder" on my web page and you were unable to even attempt a response. As I noted, murder requires several components: it is the intentional killing of a human person with malice or wantonness. Abortion is certainly intentional when it is the voluntary choice of the woman, rather than imposed on her by an outside force as in Communist China, where they share your philosophy of forcing their choices onto women (except that the choice they impose is simply different than yours). But it is not malicious or wanton since no harm is done, and it is not the killing of a human PERSON because the cells that are removed are merely human LIFE (like eggs and sperms) with the potential to develop the actual attributes of a human person, but they have not yet actually acquired those attributes.

JP: There are about 3,400 abortions committed in the US each day!

TFB replies: Gee, you say that like it's a "bad" thing.

JP: Abortion is big business!

TFB replies: So are other fields of medicine (such as heart surgery). So is the production of computers, cars, appliances, food products and many of the other products and services you use (and on which our economic ad ancement is based) without reservation. So, what is your point? However, in fairness I note that you did not point out the millions of abortions that have been performed at low cost or no cost to poor women. But then that would not fit into your convenient stereotype of the evil abortionist.

JP: The US no longer has the protective hand of God over it; for example Sept 11th, because of the fact that we murder 3,400 people every day in this country and lie to ourselves that it's okay. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool God. Better wake up and listen to what He is telling us when he ALLOWED Sept 11th to happen.

TFB replies: OK, we can see the kind of evil, cruel, malicious god YOU believe in -- who allows the destruction of thousands of innocent men, women and children whether or not they ever had an abortion because "other people" might have had one, but despite his own propensity for killing human persons outlaws the right of women to remove unwanted cell tissue from their bodies. To say that God was in any way complicit in the acceptance of this tragedy is to be on the same side of the religious fanatics who committed this atrocity, which, like you, they assert was for God's will. YOU are on the same side as Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Quaeda, and the Moslem extremists who want to destroy this country. You have made it clear where you stand. You are un-American and anti-American. You are contrary to everything a real and decent and moral divine being would or could stand for. But this should surprise no one because you share the same beliefs that Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Quaeda, and the Moslem extremists hold about the oppression of women and denying women the right to simply control their own bodies. Thank you for your clarity in telling us exactly who you are and what you stand for.

JP: Your arguments and comments are flawed and you don't see yourself, because you are blind to the truth - BY YOUR OWN CHOICE .

TFB replies: You say my arguments "fall apart," but I notice you could not actually address the substance of ANY of the arguments and facts I put forth. So they stand unchallenged. I'll take that as a vote of confidence, thank you.

JP: If you can't hear or if you ignore the "still, small voice of God " in your heart somewhere that tells you abortion is murder, then maybe your'e not one of His.

TFB replies: History is littered with religious tyrants like you who want to impose their own "still, small voices of God" onto others, even when it contradicts the resounding SILENCE in the big loud voice of scripture accepted by those who actually believe the Bible to be the word of god. The "still, small voice" is a message of personalized and individualized meaning that we can apply to our own specific situations. You (nor anyone else) receives a "still, small voice" on my account, and for you to claim otherwise is blasphemy, at least to those who accept the Judeo-Christian Bible as their sole authority on general issues that affect all people. Many have prayed and been inspired that the "still, small voice" whispered to them to choose NOT to abort; many others have prayed and been inspired by the "still, small voice" that for them abortion was the right choice. It seems from the diverse experience of those who have experienced the "still, small voice" that God recognizes different needs for differing individuals in differing situations, which is perhaps why the Bible is silent on abortion as a general subject (as I pointed out). And please, if you want to cite some of the same old verses that talk about life, birth, death, pregnancy, creation, and everything EXCEPT ABORTION, please read the section from my webpage where I respond to all these verses before you go sticking your keyboard in your mouth ... again.

JP: Your heart may already be too cold and hard.

TFB replies: I don't need to be lectured to about a cold, hard heart by someone who thinks September 11th was God's will and shares the same beliefs about women as Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Quaeda, and the Moslem extremists who want to destroy this country. But I will say that I believe my heart to be warm and caring. I care about children who have actually been born and have the actual attributes of human persons, not merely the potential to develop them in the future. I care about women who are actual human persons, with lives and feelings and problems, more than cell tissue inside them which has none of those things.

JP: Your numerous rationalizations and twisted dialogue may impress the worldly, but your words fall with a dull thud on the ears of people who believe God's word, and no matter how much you say or how carefully you craft your words, you are wrong and you can't convince God that you are right.

TFB replies: I don't need to "convince" God of anything. He has not indicated that he has any disagreement with me. You, on the other hand, have taken your own opinions and ascribed them wrongfully (and some might say BLASPHEMOUSLY) to God's will. I think you are the one who has some convincing to do ... and hasn't done it yet.

Perhaps you're just another STUPID GENIUS. Real wisdom comes from God, not from YOU. Have Fun in HELL!

TFB replies: I see. You can't actually address a single point I made in my web page, so you're going to make these nasty little threats. I'm no more afraid of you than I am your Taliban and Al Quaeda soul-mates who make the same threats. But when your cold, cruel, hateful and blasphemous past catches up with you, I'm sure you'll be eager to share with all of us just what HELL is really like.

Dialogue with Greg
Greg writes on 11-29-01:

I have been periodically visiting your website for over a year and I think you make some persuasive arguments. I am pro-choice and think that a woman has a brain and should decided for herself what action to take with what must be a very difficult decision, even though I must admit that I would like to see the number of abortions performed per year decrease. My query is I heard a pro-life activist use the biblical verse of Psalm 82:4 for justification of the pro-life movement. The verse discusses "rescuing the weak and needy." He thought that "the weak" referred to the unborn and it was his "Christian duty" to "rescue" the unborn from destruction since -- according to his logic -- the unborn cannot defend themselves and so others must be called to help them. As for myself, I don't believe the biblical writer intended the verse to be interpreted that way. I think it was intended to help already born persons in need. I haven't seen Psalm 82:4 be used very often as a pro-life defense very much and just wondered how you might interpret this verse in light of the abortion debate.

TFB replies: If the pro-life activist wants to offer this interpretation, he/she is free to do so, but must make it clear that this is their own subjective, derivative conclusion. The Bible clearly does not state that it refers to an embryo or fetus. Nor is there any corroborative literature to suggest that the ancient Hebrews EVER interpreted a reference to a weak or helpless HUMAN PERSON to include an embryo or fetus. So if this activist is going to make the positive assertion of this position, he has the burden of proof of offering evidence for such a position.

On the contrary, in Matt 25:31-46, when Jesus talked about the "least of these" (those who are weak and helpless and need), he did give some specific examples of what he meant by that: those who are hungry, thirsty, poor, naked, sick and in prison. If, in his infinite foreknowledge of the future, he could envision the future controversy over abortion, then this would have been the perfect opportunity for him to have included that clarification, which he seems to have chosen NOT to do. And I have to correct myself ... the controversy was not in the future for Jesus; I cited on my web site various examples of early Hebrew writings contemporary with Bible times which take various positions on abortion. Some thought it was OK, some opposed it. It's interesting to note, however, that none of the opposing views got selected for inclusion in the Bible.

Dialogue with Jenna
Jenna writes on 11-20-01:

The Catholic Church has proclaimed that abortion is never justifiable, however today permits abortions under special circumstances. When are these justifiable/unjustifiable in the church and how are the views of the church apposed to the female choice?

Could you please try and answer my question.
It is in conjunction with my major work for Religion in yr 12. It would be really appriciated if i could get some feedback, as i could not get the answer out of your web page, but all the same it has proved to be very helpful in my studies

TFB replies: With regret I must confess that I am not aware of conditions or "special circumstances" under which the Catholic Church permits abortion. I would suggest that you contact a Catholic theologian or expert on Catholic religious canon to find out if, in fact, there are some special situations in which they do allow abortion. If you find some example of this, you are welcome to send me the information (and reference) and I will update my comments as appropriate based on any relevant new information.

Dialogue with Tommy
Tommy writes on 11-13-01:

I have written to your colume before. In all of the literature I have read concerning parental notification and parental consent laws, I have not seen one piece of testimony from minors who were blocked from having abortions. I do know the real reasons behind these laws. I am not writing to debate on their merits (I disagree with them, it is incumbant upon parents to communicate with their daughters AND sons before they start having sex). I would like to know what tactics have parents used to block their daughters from exercising their constitutional right to choice. Can you answer this? Maybe a few of these stories in legislative hearings my sway a few democratic legislators and give them some backbone.

TFB replies: I agree that the purpose of "parental consent laws" has little to do with public safety and everything to do with harassment, obstruction and trying to inconvenience women who want to make a choice that differs from the religious views of those who want to make her choices for her.

T: I also believe the ACLU should persuade some women who have been harmed by abortion restrictions to sue the state for punitive damages. Oh by the way, I have just thought of a way to beat Louisiana's Liability Law. Have a woman go to the abortion provider, get refused, get an abortion in Texas, turn around and sue the woman in Louisianna for say $10,000.00. How would a Louisianna judge handle a case like this. If the abortion provider does not contest standing, the case would have to proceed to trial. Showing the flip side of an argument is a great way to twist the neck of a anti-life judge. Is this a crazy idea?

TFB replies: As for having the ACLU sue states, I think the idea has merit from the perspective of what is morally right, but I doubt your proposal would carry much legal standing. States can pass whatever laws they want and they are immune from damage claims for such legislative acts; the only recourse is to have inappropriate laws declared unconstitutional, and a court that would usurp the Constitutional procedures for resolving election disputes (to be settled by a political body, the Congress) and simply appoint their own choice, would certainly have no qualms about chipping away at women's rights. Until we get a progressive president to appoint judges who will enforce the Constitutional rights of women to reproductive self-determination, we will not make progress in that area.

Tommy continues on 11-14-01:

Thanks for your reply, you still have one more question to answer. What tactics have parents used to block their daughters from exercising their constitutional rights?

TFB replies: I have not researched this area. While I have heard a few specific (and terrifying) examples, I am more concerned with advocating for appropriate legislation (and moral views) along with an appropriate manner of enforcement of rights, and less focused on specific examples of violations of laws and rights. I'm sure Dr. Harrison, who lives and works on the front lines to a far greater extent than I do, could probably provide far better info in this regard, but I am not sure that is the scope of the issue here. What I do see as the scope of this issue is that we must have enforcement that prevents parents from blocking their daughters' rights, and we must reiterate the reasons why "parental notification" or "parental permission" laws (which seem so innocent to many at first glance) are really onerous. In that vein I will reiterate some comments from my web site:

Although [the issue of parental consent] is really a separate issue from abortion for adults, you can't compare birth control or abortions for minors with giving them aspirins (the variation of this argument I hear most often) or a tonsillectomy (by the way, in my state of California, and I think this is pretty common in other states, too, emergency medical care, including tonsillectomy or any treatment deemed medically necessary, CAN be given if a parent can't be reached, or if a parent withholds permission - numerous cases have been decided in which Christian Scientists refused to give permission for medical care, but it was authorized over their protests).
Giving aspirin, for example, is a matter of risk vs. benefits - aspirin does carry risks (Reyes syndrome, etc.), yet the most benefit you'll ever get is minor pain relief. On the other hand, the risks of birth control or abortion are far less than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, and the life-changing consequences of parenthood will last long after the teenager is an adult. The parents are not the ones who will have those consequences, unless they choose to, so they have no right to withhold their permission. Aspirin or other routine, minor procedures (realistic possibility of risk for minimal benefit) SHOULD require parental consent; abortion, as well as other serious procedures that can be life-saving or life changing, should NOT be subject to parental determination as the final authority.
Of course, when the flip side of this issue is brought up, we often see that those who raise this issue are not really in support of parental decision making, but rather only support the parent's right to make the decision IF it agrees with their pre-determined opinion.
Suppose a teenage girl wants to carry an unwed pregnancy to term, but her parents don't think she is ready for the life-changing consequences and they want her to have an abortion. It goes both ways. Should she be required to obtain parental consent for the much more dangerous procedure of childbirth? Should her parents have the right to make the choice that she have an abortion? Should there be "parental consent" for pregnancy? Or is this NOT really an issue of giving rights to parents, but turning over the decision-making process to those who want to force their opinions on parents, children and everyone else?
While it is best when the teenagers and parents have the kind of relationship where they can make important decisions together (which, in real life, is what actually happens) more often, when that relationship is abusive, antagonistic, or the parents will put guilt or pressure on the young woman to make a decision different than what she wants, then they must be prevented from doing so. This is especially true in cases of child abuse, incest or domestic rape -- no matter how rare they are. Especially in the case of incest, where the parent of an underage girl might actually be one and the same as the father of her pregnancy, it would be a cruel irony of injustice (not to mention a horrendous conflict of interest) to also give the parent who has already destroyed any normalcy of her sex life the right to control the choices about her future role of parenthood in a way that could further tie her down and make her a further prisoner of the choices HE forces onto her.

T: I also have more questions to ask: Could a pregnant minor forced or coerrced into carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term sue her parents for violating her civil rights? Would a minor who is coerrced into having an abortion against her will have standing to sue her parents for violating her civil rights? How would a state like Louisianna or Mississippi react to the first minor?

I would like to the the first minor see her day in court. I would like to see Pat Robertson explain how the family unity and cohesion has been enhanced. One of the prime arguments for parental involvement laws.

TFB replies: These are excellent LEGAL questions, and I am not qualified to answer them. Certainly there is insufficient case law at this point to say what would happen in litigation in this regards. Rather than try to answer the unanswerable, I would add to your excellent questions one of my own: if the choices of the parents caused the woman to carry a pregnancy to completion against her will (she wants an abortion), could she hold them responsible for the child support? Especially if the identity of the sperm donor were unknown or if he were unavailable (dead, incapacitated, incarcerated or fled the country)? Or even if the sperm donor were around and contributing, could she still hold the parents who made the choice to provide additional support?

T: How would a state justify denying the first minor standing yet give standing to the second? The state of Florida and others have laws allowing for prosecution of parents who try to coerce their daughters into having abortions. Do those states also protect minors that choose abortion as vigorously? (Equal protection arguments) I do not believe my issues have ever been raised in a court room.

The state has immunity against lawsuits for monetary damages (citizens may not sue their sovereign as one appeals court put it). Citizens do not have such immunity. I believe the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL should take a good look at my questions.

TFB replies: I raised the same issue in my webpage (noted above) that if parents can force pregnancy then if abortion is an equal and legal choice then they have the same right to coerce pregnancy, and any law that would distinguish between these two lawful choices is clearly a back-door effort to undermine the choice to abort, and would thus have to be unconstitutional.

T: Please relay this email to Dr. Harrison with your own comments.

Additional reply by Dr. William F. Harrison (wharri3365@cox-internet.com) on 11-18-01:

TFB once again your answers have been "right on." As to the first question, what tactics have parents used to block children from receiving abortion, my experience with this is very limited, because here in Arkansas, it is mandated by law only that the physician providing an abortion must notify both parents at least 48 hours before an abortion is scheduled or as an alternative, the minor can request a judicial bypass whereby a judge is given the duty of determining whether or not the minor is "mature" enough to request an abortion on her own. As you have so elequently stated in your answer, the level of maturity required to make a decision to bear a child by a minor is not addressed, though it is common knowledge that the consequences of a child having a child as opposed to a child having an abortion is comparable to being shot with a bb-gun versus being hit with a 15,000 lb "cookie cutter" bomb. The divestation visited on families and children, especially very immature children (the very ones that the judicial bypass is supposed to "weedout" from those having abortions) when these children are born into families already crippled by ignorance, poverty and all the social problems that attend these conditions (and these are almost always the types of families involved in these disputes where the child desires abortion while the parent or parents oppose this option) are well known. In Richaard North Patterson's book, the fictional parents opposing a daughter's abortion are just that, fictional. I have never personally experienced a loving parent opposing a childs's abortion. The situation is nearly always exactly the reverse in these situations - the previously very Pro-Life parents bring in the minor daughter whose future they see blighted by the circumstances of her pregnancy, and the immature child refusing to accede to what her parents are now advocating. Most loving parents want what is best for their child, and when faced with the abortion decision for a daughter who is immature and totally unready to bear the responsibility and burden of the birth of a child, most parents opt for abortion. Usually their reasoning is, " we are as prolife as anyone, but this is our darling daughter, someone we know and love, a child we have borne and nurtured and tried to the best of our ability to protect from all the terrible things that might beset her, and now we are faced with a situation the promises to change her life forever, in ways that we can't control. We want to delay this type of burden until it can be a blessing." They suddenly realize that while a new birth can truly be a blessing for all involved, that it can sometimes be an overwhelming burden.

As to the question, could a child sue? Anyone can sue anyone else at any time for anything. All you need is a lawyer willing to take the case. wfh

Dialogue between Chris and Dr. William F. Harrison
WHarri3365@aol.com
Special note:
This dialogue is a conversation between Chris (who has participated in this form previously, in late 1999 and early 2000) and Dr. Harrison, who is a medical doctor who performs abortions and is a regular contributor to this forum. Chris wrote directly to Dr. Harrison based on contact information from this forum.

Chris writes to Dr. Harrison on 10-4-01:

Dear Dr. Harrison,

Hello! I came across your name and email address at TF Baran's webpage.
I hope you don't mind if I write you directly.

This is a rather short email. I'm curious about your thoughts on the following admission made by pro-choice lawyers Bonnie Scott Jones (of the Center for Reproductive Law & Policy) and Catherine Mauzy (an Austin attorney), on p.10 of their "Respondents' Brief on the Merits" to the Supreme Court of Texas in the pending Medicaid funding case (#01-0061):

"Specifically, the risk of death from abortion increases at least 20% with each week of gestation after eight weeks, and the risk of major medical complications [from abortion] increases 20% with each week of gestation after seven weeks."

The comment was made to support their argument that Medicaid funding of abortion in Texas (which is only for rape, incest, and life of the mother) should be provided early in pregnancy, and for any reason, before a later complication threatens the mother's life, thus permitting Medicaid funding.

Don't you think this sort of statement supports the variety of informed consent bills present in various legislatures around the country?

Dr. WFH replies: Chris Given that the risks of abortion at any stage of pregnancy up to viability, when done by an experienced physician, never even approachs the risks of carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering, perhaps it is the physician who is contracting to deliver a baby who should be giving informed consent, especially when contracting to "care for" a girl or woman with known conditions which increase those risks and make abortion an even more attractive alternative for some patients. If it were really "informed consent" that was the interest of those proposing "informed consent laws", this would obviously be the thrust of those arguments. I wonder why it never is? I can think of hundreds of surgical and medical procedures which have far greater risks of injury with signicantly less well demonstrated benefits than does safe legal abortion for many women, but I have never heard of a congressman or legislator suggesting that there be a 24 hour waiting period before a patient undergoes invasive cardiac artery surgery, or stomach stapling procedures for morbid obesity. Perhaps when I hear a legislator suggest that a woman must have state mandated counseling prior to breast augumentation or liposuction or a man dermabrasion, then I might believe that legislators are really interested in patient safety rather than making abortion more difficult to obtain and in harrassing those providing abortion and making the procedures more expensive. Given that elective legal abortion is currently one of the safest operative procedures performed in the US, those who advocate "informed consent laws" concerning abortion will forever have a difficult time convincing anyone who is medically knowlegdable about surgery that those advancing such laws have any agenda other than making all abortions unavailable. William F Harrison.

Chris continues later on 10-4-01:

Dear Dr. Harrison,

I appreciate your reply to my query. You make some good points.

Dr. WFH replies: Chris Interestingly, the risk of major surgery (including c-section etc) in carrying a pregnancy to term now approaches almost fifty % in some hospitals, particularly those in small towns where the most conservatives OBs practice. In 1997, the last year for which we have CDC statistics, there were well over 250 deaths in women carrying pregnancies to term in the US, while the number of deaths associated with legal abortion was 2. The probability of serious medical conditions becoming manifest during pregnancy is overwhelmingly greater than during or after a legal abortion, post partum depression - on occassion a very real and serious condition posing significant risks to a woman and her family - occurs with great frequency following delivery but almost never following abortion, the possibility of sterilizing infection of the pelvic organs is common after delivery, extremely rare after legal abortion. And I could go on and on.

The complications that I mentioned with carrying a pregnancy to term, major surgery, infection, infertility, increasing severity of unrelated medical complications, hemorrhage, not to mention the terrible social and personal consequences of children having children, etc., etc., etc., almost never happen with elective legal abortions in this country. Unless you know the risks of the therapeutic alternatives, you really can't make an informed decision about those alternatives. And, of course, those demanding state mandated abortion counseling never wants to address the risks of abortion's only alternative. wfh

Dialogue with Dr. William F. Harrison
wharri3365@cox-internet.com
Special note:
it is our policy to include first names only in the Dialogue, but Dr. Harrison's full name and credentials have been included at his specific request, and he is an occasional additional contributor to my comments in this forum. His frequent assistance is much appreciated.
Dr. Harrison is the author of the book There is a Bomb in Gilead, published in 1999 by M&M Press.
We are pleased to host some of Dr. Harrison's insightful comments, and recommend the following:
Election 2002 - The Mourning After, at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/wfhmd2002.html
Roe v. Wade, Bush and the Republican Congress - A Thirty Year Run Ended? at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/roe-v-republicans.html

Dr. Bill (wharri3365@cox-internet.com) writes on 3-30-01:

As you know, I first read your site (I think) last November. I am a 65 year old OB/GYN who has delivered thousands of babies and done thousands of elective abortions. When I first contacted you last year I wanted to tell you how intelligent and well informed I considered you essay. Over these past few months I pull up your site from time to time to see what changes your dialogue with supporters and detractors has inspired. Then I review your exchanges with your audience. I am always amazed by the constant vituperation and narrowness of our opposition and the smallness of their souls. I have written exhaustively on abortion since 1984 when I decided that those of us in the Pro-Choice community who had extensive experience and hardwon knowledge about the issues involved had to become more active in a public dialogue. Most physicians are reticent to get involved in any kind of controversy, we are by nature a conservative group. However, when consistantly false information is presented by one side without being countered by factual information from the other side, social discourse becomes like an economy overwhelmed by counterfit money - bankrupt. Pro-Life forces are doing all they can to morally and ethically bankrupt the abortion debate by overwhelming the public debate with counterfit - false - information. You have done a real service to women, physicians and society by writing and maintaining your website, particularily maintaining the Dialogue to counter the bad coin of intellectual exchange that your opponents try to pass. Keep up the good work.
William F Harrison, MD, FACOG

TFB replies: I really appreciate your encouragement and support, and feel free to add your comments or insights to any of the dialogue that appears from others. I respect your openness and courage in being willing to stand up for factual integrity and accurate information.

Dr. Bill (wharri3365@cox-internet.com) writes again on 9-16-01:

Dear TFB I wondered if you had seen Pat Pobertson's and Jerry Falwell's quotes in response to the tragic events of last tues [Septe 11, 2001]. Their take on this is that People for the American Way, the ACLU, gays and lesbians, liberals and "liberal civil libertarians" and those who support abortion, along with us abortionists are responsible for the terrorist acts. As Rev. Jerry says, "God will not be mocked." I sent the Rev. Jerry a copy of my book after reading their remarks. I thought he would get a kick out of my potrait of the Preacher and his sermon in the book. I am anxiously awaiting his thanks for my generosity. Hope he reads it, but at least someone in his church's office might do so.

TFB replies: The sentiments expressed in these quotes make me sick. God did not hijack four planes and crash them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. What kind of cruel, evil god do they believe in? This was not done by God. It was done by men. Evil men. Evil religious extremists, who happen to oppose a woman's right to make personal choices and thus are actually in agreement with Reverends Pat and Jerry. Pat and Jerry represent the American version of these religious extremists who seek to deny women's rights and use the power of government to impose their views on everyone else. And just as these Islamic right-wing fundamentalists are not representative of the majority of good and decent Muslims who understand that Islam means "peace" and the Koran teaches love and mercy, Reverends Pat and Jerry are not representative of the majority of good and decent Christians who REJECT their extremists, authoritarian cruelty. Additional comments on this point have been added to the main commentary page, at:
http://www.wordwiz72.com/choice.html#Christian

Prior dialogues:
To keep this web page to a manageable size, previous dialogues have been moved to a separate prior file which can be found at:
http://www.wordwiz72.com/ch0402forum.html

We welcome feedback! Send e-mail feedback to: feedback.
Please note, be sure to include the word "feedback" somewhere in the title of your message to avoid having your e-mail deleted unread with all the other junk e-mail that is mass deleted. Please note, all e-mails or comments submitted become the property of T.F.Barans and Word Wizards and may be included in this forum.

This forum consists of selected e-mails representing views that both agree and disagree with the comments on this webpage, along with responses from the author when appropriate. Comments used will be quoted exactly (copied and pasted from e-mails) but personal or extraneous comments may be omitted in the interest of space and relevance.

To participate, send your e-mail comments to TFBarans@aol.com (including the word "feedback" somewhere in the title) and then watch this space to see your comments as part of a current, topical discussion. Please include all comments within the text area of the e-mail. DO NOT SEND E-MAIL ATTACHMENTS. All messages that contain attached files will be deleted -- the e-mail text will not even be opened, much less the attached file -- it will be dragged straight into the "Delete" icon.

Please note that this file contains selected comments taken from e-mails sent to T.F.Barans. This is intended to be a representative sample of correspondence. Not all e-mails are included; those most likely to be included are those that discuss the issues intellegently, not those who call names or who use excessive profanity. Submissions may be edited for space and relevance and extraneous or personal comments may be omitted, however the actual words selected for inclusion will be used exactly as submitted (copied and pasted from e-mail messages).
In most cases, T.F.Barans will have already exchanged correspondence directly with the writer and even if the writer has received a response from T.F.Barans directly via e-mail, it may take several days before the response gets added to this forum.

Please note, only issues-related comments will be included. Irrelevant comments or personal insults will not be selected. If multiple participants make a similar point, only those that make the point most efficiently will be selected, and all e-mails or comments submitted become the property of T.F.Barans and Word Wizards and may be included in the forum at the sole discretion of T.F.Barans and Word Wizards.

LINKS to other sources of pro-choice information and involvement opportunities:
--Planned Parenthood.
--National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL).
--California Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League (CARAL).
--Californians for Responsible Choices.
--Catholics for Choice.
--Elroy's Abortion Rights Commentary. A particularly insightful and informative commentary on the subject.

We are pleased to host several insightful commentaries by renowned physician Dr. William F. Harrison, and recommend the following:
Smug Religious Terrorists, at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/religterror.html
Election 2002 - The Mourning After, at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/wfhmd2002.html
Roe v. Wade, Bush and the Republican Congress - A Thirty Year Run Ended? at: http://www.wordwiz72.com/roe-v-republicans.html

Return to main article (Women's Reproductive Self-Determination) by T.F. Barans

Return to Word Wizards free downloads for other articles that may be downloaded FREE!