Hey Dave,

When does a mom think it's a baby she's carrying?

Bill

This is good stuff! Over here at Aberdeen our ethics chair asked me to lead a reading group on Person, Grace, and God by Phillip A. Rolnick along with another postgraduate which promises to take our discussion in a completely different direction! Thanks for this post- please do keep updating us on events from LLU Bio-Ethics!

A mom thinks she's carrying a baby some time after her first missed period and after a positive pregnancy test. I don't know just where that falls in the timing of implantation. But I do agree that it doesn't take long for a relationship between mother and child to develop once pregnancy is known.

As more is understood about the fetus and what affects it, I think in the case of rape or incest the mother should certainly be the once to decide whether to abort. If she feels anger or victimization and doesn't want to have the child because of the associations with its conception, the fetus can sense rejection, which may affect it for life.

From my limited experience of listening to women who have and have not chosen abortion, it seems that a possible answer to Bill's question (yes, to Dave) depends on the mother -- her experience with the fetus, her understanding of biology, her metaphysics.

On this thread it will be interesting to see which determining factors are isolated by various commenters as primary moral determinants for the action. Interesting that thus far Bill, Carrol and Dave all root the moral choice with the mother.

Here's the second mother who believes that only the mother should make such an important decision.

Why do we hear so much concern for the fetus and so little for the mother? Is she not at least, as equally important in such a momentous decision?

I have known a number of women, or girls, who had an abortion, and in each of those cases their decision was the right one, looking back over several decades.

Only a mother, or prospective one, can understand and empathize with the trauma involved whether going to term or electing for an abortion.

If the loss of a fetus is of ultimate importance and recognition, why does a natural abortion, rather than a therapeutic one, not elicit concern? For prospective mothers who may have eagerly waited and hoped for a baby, only to have it end in a miscarriage, it is an equally traumatic event.

When this subject is discussed, or when anti-abortionists wish to be heard, why are the large majority usually male? Only when there is equal concern for the babies and children already born, should there be outrage against abortion. The vigorous opponents of abortion should be willing to finance the support of at least one child until the age of 18 or else keep quiet.

A related subject: Is it true that Medicaid & Medicare will pay for ED, a non-disease, but Medicaid will not pay for birth control pills or the morning-after pill?

"Interesting that thus far Bill, Carrol and Dave all root the moral choice with the mother."

Oh, I didn't say that. I was pointing to my experience that pregnant women generally know it is a baby they carry, not a philosophical question. I've never heard a mother say, "I'm carrying a potential life form."

And if it is a baby, there are moral considerations, I would say (as would my wife).

I also say this as a father of a son who was born premature--the law allows babies to be killed at the same developmental point at which he was born. Now, should a mother be given the final say? Up to what point?

I know that's not what you believe, just noting where you placed the emphasis first.

When does a mom think it's a baby she's carrying? Note that you didn't type "ethicist" or "pastor" or "James Dobson" or "the state" or "the president" or "the court" or "the doctor."

But note in the second comment the emphasis shifted to where that maternal definition (and say) stops.

should a mother be given the final say?

Like I said earlier, it will be interesting (and telling) to see where the emphasis for agency gets placed.

Hi Bill!

Is your son doing well? Hope so!

I'm thinking about your report that "the law allows babies to be killed at the same developmental point at which he was born."

As I recall, Roe v. Wade says that in the third trimester the states "may" pass laws prohibiting abortion but not that they "must" do so.

So I think that you are right if we are talking about Roe. But I wonder what Texas law says. It might outlaw what Roe allows.

Thanks!

Dave

It strikes me that the writers of the Bible might be surprised to see what ends certain texts are used for--the baby John the Baptist jumping in his mother's womb seems much more like a symbolic plot point in the birth of the Messiah than about a gestational/biological look at when life can officially be said to begin. As the writer points out here, the OT verses about formed or unformed babies treat the whole package (mother and all) as property, so we probably can't adopt that philosophy either.

To Bill's question, the women I know all wanted to be pregnant, but even they didn't start "really" thinking of this potential within as a baby until they felt it move (the "quickening" and the old way to know for sure if you were pregnant before tests), and that happens in the 2nd trimester.

It also always strikes me that the most vehement views on abortion are almost invariably held by men. Not that men aren't a part of the whole getting pregnant process, but they seem to slip pretty easily back into the "property" mindset and want to dictate what happens to a woman's body.

As someone who has recently discovered that I won't be able to have children very easily, this topic seems especially poignant. I haven't changed my conviction that an abortion is always a moral choice (aren't all choices?), or that that agency always ultimately lies with the mother--it is her body that this life grows in.

But I think pro-choice advocates would do well to acknowledge that an abortion is always a tragedy, something to be mourned, something to be avoided if at all possible. Very likely it is also the right choice in some situations (if having an abortion brings pain and chaos, no doubt an unwanted child does too), but that doesn't mean it isn't a great loss.

If we want to avoid this loss of life potential, we should do a lot more than extort or legislate the bodies and choices of women. The abortion rate in the US is actually down, because programs do work (not abstinence only programs though).

I like the bon mot "If man could give birth, abortion would be a sacrament!" Tom

Our family knows the answer to the question on abortion. We do not propose to answer it for anyone else. The Obstetricians I know all counsel against abortion, except in the case of the life of the mother or gross non-viable embryos. How many have seen "crack" babies? There are plenty more that don't "make it."

How many have seen a premee intensive care unit? If you follow golf you will know of Charles Howell. His father is a pediatric surgeon. I've seen his work on premee's. More important I have heard him lecture legislators on the Ethics of "saving these tiny ones". I never was so proud of doctoring as during his discourse. To think that he has five residents at a time. I have hope for the future of our youngsters with men and women like that coming out of our medical centers. Tom

These are tricky questions! Are there universial answers?

Can we use the bible to get the answers to all the grayzones-questions in life?

Is an abortion ok just because the fetus in question is a potential cause of making the mother's life miserable? Or if it is a potential cause of making it's own life miserable?
If so, up to what age of the potential relationship-destroying creature/fetus/baby/human beeing?

Will an abortion be an act that has a profound effect on only one human beings life, just because a professor of bioethics or the church or the society defines the word 'person' ?

Inavitable in many western societies these questions are owned by the conscience / ethics of the mother to be, no matter if she has a Phd in bioethics or law or not .
What would Jesus Christ say on these questions if living among us today?
Would he throw the first stone?

And to take these questions further:
In the other end of life, when does the human life stop to be untouchable?
When a murderer is caught in the hands of society?
When an individual is joining a hostile army, voluntarily or not?

The United States is one of the few western societies who still practice death-sentence.
In most countries it's not only accepted for a non-criminal citizen soldier to kill an "enemy"-soldier, even if the victim might have been forced to become a soldier against his/her will, it is expected.

Do we accept these practices? Are the ethics (or lack of such) of our politicians something that matters when we decide on who will get our vote in the election? What's more important, ethics or wallet-questions?
Do we communicate the golden rule through our lifes and words?

One thing is for sure, there will be no paradise among humans before Jer. 31:33 is a reality.

These are difficult questions, that is true. Unfortunately, in order to make a point, both sides of the issue tend to conflate two different questions which are inherent in the discussion.

One question is, "What position, if any, should Christians --or 'the Church,' if you prefer-- take regarding abortion.?"

The other question is, "What action, if any, should the state take regarding abortion/"

For example, some argue that, even in a case of rape or incest, God will bless a woman who carries the baby to term and gives birth.

Assuming, for the moment, that that is true, then it would make sense for Christians, for the church, to encourage (and support) the woman to carry the child and receive that blessing.

On the other hand, I doubt if any of us wants the state telling us how God will bless us, and what to do to receive those blessings.

It seems perfectly possible, in that situation, for a person in his/her role as a Christian to believe abortion is wrong in these cases, but be opposed to legislation mandating that she carry the child.

This sort of internal separation of church and state occurs all the time. We may believe it is morally wrong to do business on the Sabbath, and yet oppose legislation mandating Sabbath observance.

So it is that "where one locates choice" may be in one place concerning the moral question, and somewhere else with regard to the legislative question.

Those who absolutize the issue of "choice" in this instance seldom do so on other issues. That is, in any society, individuals have a range of choices, not unlimited choice. The burden of proof must be on the who argues that a woman's choice, or the state's choice, should be absolute in this particular issue.

Is there any more personal choice than that of reproduction? We have laws prohibiting religious practices unless they infringe on another's rights. Parenthood is a private, conscious decision made, much like religion. The choice to have children, or the choice not to be parents is of recent origin. For nearly all of this world's history, there wasn't a choice; in fact in the Hebrew culture, the more children one had, the more blessing, they were following the command to be fruitful and multiply, even if several wives were required to gain an extra blessing.

The wide use of contraception did not become common until the middle of the past century, freeing women to pursue careers and not be burdened with years of pregnancy and many children to care for. This was one of the greatest societal changes in the U.S. during that century: for the first time in the world's history, women were freed from constant pregnancies, and the resulting high infant mortality. Margaret Sanger, a pioneer for women, was incarcerated more than once for giving contraceptive information to women, a crime at that time.

As a mother of three, it was absolutely the most memorable of event in my life. All others pale in insignifance by comparison. Ask any mother what was the most important even in her entire life, and nearly 100% will say that first baby--it is indelibly impressed on her mind. I will disagree, however, with the premise that every pregnancy implies an instantaneous realization that she is carrying a baby. Having experinced a miscarriage midway between the first and second trimester, and having had two previous pregnancies, I knew from the start this one was not "right." Nothing was normal and without consciously raising the question, subconsciously, I knew something was terribly wrong: and I was right, and did not become attached to a "baby" as I had previously.

Can any man possibly understand there is a universe of differences between carrying a much-wanted baby, and carrying one from either a rape or one that is so seriously deformed as to not be viable? Exceptions? Yes, but no one should veto the woman's choice. If a man had to carry a 25 lb. watermelon strapped to his stomach for nine months, with the attendand nausea, and all the other pregnancy-related symptoms, there would be much more empathy directed to the unfortunate women who choose abortion. To portray it as a routine method of birth control, or to infer it as a flippant choice of women, is a rude indication that this subject is one that some men, and women, will never, ever comprehend; which is why they should have no say in the matter.

Abortion is a question that confronts more than victims of rape or incest. After eight years of infertility tests and treatments I finally became pregnant at the age of 37. A miracle for which my husband and I rejoiced. But then, because of my age, I was told that I needed to have amniocentesis to diagnose any possible abnormalities and the state of California would pay for it. Happily there were none. But before I had the test, I spent a lot of time wondering what I would do if they discovered spina bifida or Down's syndrome. My husband's answer was almost automatic--of course you would have an abortion. I wasn't so sure. I don't know that I could have. Did the state that funded the test expect me to have an abortion if the results were not normal? If not, why did they pay for the test?

When conditions occur that suggest a possible abortion, it is always a very emotional challenging time. Perhaps the question for people other than the parents to consider is how to be helpful to people as they work through the issues surrounding this very personal decision. I know at that point in time I was looking for someone to listen to me, and not give me pat answers.

There is an interesting essay on the Huffington Post today.

One of the lions of Christian conservatism, Frank Schaeffer, writes why he is pro-life and pro-Obama.

The society that Obama is calling us to sacrifice for is a place wherein life would be valued not just talked about. As he said in his speech delivered on February 6 in New Orleans, "Too often, we lose our sense of common destiny; that understanding that we are all tied together; that when a woman has less than nothing in this country, that makes us all poorer." Obama was talking about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but his words also apply to our overall view of ourselves.

Regardless of the official position of the Supreme Court on abortion, a country in which all Americans are offered some sort of dignity and hopeful future would be a place conducive to the kind of optimism each of us must hold in our hearts if we are to welcome children into this world. But if our highest aspiration is to be a consumer with no thought or care for our neighbor, we will remain a culture in which abortion is not only inevitable but logical.

What we need in America is a spiritual rebirth, a turning away from the false value of consumerism and utilitarianism that have trumped every aspect of human life. To implement this vision we need leaders that inspire but to do so they have to be what they say they are. It's not about policy it's about character.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/why-im-prolife-and-pro_b_8...

I'm just reading Ben Carson's latest book on taking risks. His four-point Best/Worst Analysis is 1)What is the best that wiill result if I do this? 2)What is the worst that will result if I do this? 3)What is the best that will result if I don't do this? and 4)What is the worst that will result if I don't do this? Might these questions be helpful in deciding whether to abort?

I think education and loving encouragement in making the best decision in an individual case is what is needed. And I reiterate that the mother (and secondarily, the father) are the persons who have that responsibility.

To respond to Ed's assertion that a mother can receive a blessing from carrying a child resulting from rape or incest, I wonder if it was a man who argued that. Do you have any idea what a woman feels toward her attacker after a rape? How her sense of security and confidence are violated? How her feelings may communicate themselves to the fetus? How the fetus may inherit the tendencies to violence from its father? How her husband, if she's married, may feel toward the baby? Surely these things ought to be considered in a decision to carry or abort.

In the case of incest, which often involves a father and daughter, think of the greater likelihood of genetic problems. Think of the baby's twisted relationship to father and mother. Think of the mother's probable dependence on her and the baby's father. Think of the likelihood of future incest. Ought those things to be taken into consideration?

Of course, an abortion is always a tragedy, but sometimes it averts a greater tragedy. It should never be decided upon without careful and prayerful considerations. But one-size-fits-all laws are not the answer. Nor are the moral pressures of those who think they know what God expects.

The minute I learned I was pregnant, I felt a bond of love for the new life growing within me, and I think many mothers do the same. But I'm sure there are also circumstances when such news is not greeted with joy. Our moral obligation is to make life better for such people, not to condemn them for the desperate decisions they may have to make.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95sep/abortion/abortion.htm

Thought this would be an interesting read for those who haven't seen it yet.

One issue no one has mentioned in association with state interference is the health of the mother. Being pregnant and delivering a child, while very natural, can be dangerous. Most of the information I've read says first trimester abortion is about 8 times safer for a female then carrying a baby to term and delivering it. Now of course the likelihood of problems is still low but we are asking a woman, even a healthy woman, to put herself at greater physical risk to carry a baby to term. Many women are willing to do this of course but if the state steps in and rules against abortion in the first trimester, it is also setting women up for a greater health risk. I would imagine that prenatal care etc. would be more haphazard for a woman ambivalent or even resentful about being pregnant thus increasing the risk even more.

I had three different experiences with miscarriage. After trying very hard to get pregnant I finally did and then miscarried. I was absolutely devastated and grieved for months. Early in the pregnancy with my second child, I started bleeding and thought I was miscarrying. I was sad but shrugged it off. I got pregnant when I was older and my husband and I were done having kids. I was very, very upset and worried about both my health and the health of the baby. We did not want more kids. Period. When I miscarried I cried tears of relief. I never grieved. I was just so relieved. One cannot make sweeping judgments about how women feel about being pregnant, about miscarrying, and about aborting. Even the same woman can feel differently depending on the circumstances at the time.

Boy do I love time setters. They are so positive in being negative. Why five weeks? There is blood being pumped sooner. Yet the face doesn't form until 8 weeks. Other than kicking, no interpersonal relationship until suckling begins.

Yes abortion is a moral issue. But men should be very quiet on the subject--learned or not!

Of course women have both a physical and emotional attachment much sooner. The primry decision-maker should be the mother to be. The pompous male asses that spout pro-life just to get votes would be laughable if the subject were not so serious.

Let us see a little male discipline first. Why dump all the blame on the woman? I guess we are really the sons of Adam--"The Woman!" Tom

Hey: an actual thread on abortion instead of the topic finding it’s way in to all sorts of other discussions.

A couple stories --

-- I’ve a friend who is an Obstetrician. Very secular happy atheist. Very much pro-choice. Been in practice over 20 years now. And a very compassionate man and good doc. And he told me that in his experience, he has NEVER met a woman who had an abortion who did not suffer significant psychologic trauma and consequences. And he wasn’t talking just short term. Sure they were coping well, and many still believed it was probably the best thing to have done, but the fallout and consequences to their pyche, to their soul, were very real and long term. He called abortion a tragedy; a failure of humanity on many levels…

-- As a med student at LLU, while on my OB rotation I was at one of the County hospitals (maybe Riverside??) and assigned to follow one particular Obstetrician. So I spent a morning in the OR with him. And he had a few cases which were booked as “D&C”s. I recall one lady. She was black, in her 40’s, was carrying her 21st pregnancy, had 13 kids, most of whom were still at home, and she looked exhausted. The D&C was no such thing; it was an elective abortion. Two things stick with me to this day about that woman’s case. Her OB doc was compassionate, and believed with all his heart he was doing not only the best thing for everyone, but also the moral thing. And he too called abortion a tragedy. Second thing that struck me was the utter casualness of the act for the woman. It really jarred me how there simply was NO bond between her and “it”.

There are things in cultures that provide windows into that cultures soul. Abortion is one of those things I think. Rights, control, responsibilities, consequences, priorities, privilege. All give insights into who we are as a people. And the way we handle and think of abortion is, I think, a tragedy.

Aspects of the tragedy, for me include---

-- Dave speaks of potentiality… but far too late it seems… What about responsible people accepting the potentiality that having sex just might cause a …. “consequence”?

-- men who oppose abortion are presumed to be… Manipulative… Controlling… Domineering… when in fact they might actually care about the life they helped cause…

-- all too many men are assumed to be such because… men really do have a history of not taking responsibility for their actions… Tragedy...

-- all too few women are not allowed to process the fears which drive them to see abortion as the best option. What kind of pathetic society offers so little support that abortion becomes the best option?

-- it is tragedy that abortion is not seen as the violence it is. That problems, pressures, fears, worries, are thought to be somehow “solved” by violence against this “thing” who never asked to be here in the first place… of course it would also be tragedy to do violence to a woman’s ability to think and evaluate and decide…

-- isn’t it a tragedy -- as well as an academic arrogance -- to talk about when life, or personhood begins?…. doesn’t even the discussion mean we have already “lost” something?

-- isn’t it a tragedy that a woman is allowed to feel guilty -- for feeling guilty? or guilty that it’s bothering her? that a woman is expected to feel … nothing??

-- isn’t it a tragedy that Nic S is treated with such disdain when he brings his passion for the subject to this site?

-- I see also tragedy in supposedly intelligent politicians arguing that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare; yet their efforts are almost entirely to make it legal, and almost zilch to making it rare… Why is that?

I think, that, abortion is a symptom of the fall…. to the extent that each and every abortion is mourned by the entire society, redemption has begun... an abortion means someone, maybe many someone's, failed... blaming and badgering only makes this worse...

We should all agree that the decrease in abortions is to be praised. Is it due to better contraceptive information? There is no definitive answer.

Bob, when you speak of the 21st pregnancy for a woman patient, when my husband was interning in Louisiana, the doctors were prevented from giving a woman contraceptive information, period.
He recalled delivering a woman of her 13th child which she could not financially or physically care for; but by law they were prevented from suggesting a tubal ligation or any contraceptive information. That was criminal, IMO. For anyone not to be informed of their own body should shame everyone.

Would an abortion traumatize her? I dare say that another child would have been much more of a burden. As a forensic medical examiner for two counties, he often saw the horrible results of unwanted children abused and killed by their parents. Children, AFTER they are born, are far more abused and killed than by early abortion. Both should never occur, but there must be provisions for life that is less than ideal. On this subject there seems to be two positions: Idealists and pragmatists. The first hope to see everyone live the idyllic life; the latter attempt to adapt, adjust, and improve life as it is.

Tom, every now and then you just surprise the socks off of me! It does seem surprising doesn't it that the most vehement voices on this topic are often men, who even though they certainly were there at the start, haven't traditionally been too reliable about being there through the end (at least in situations where an abortion is being considered).

I'm with you Bob on wishing that we would foster a society in which abortions were rare. Of course it's a tragedy, but, yes, unfortunately it might sometimes avert a larger one.

I appreciated those comments from Frank Schaeffer that Alex posted on why he's a pro-lifer supporting Obama:
"Regardless of the official position of the Supreme Court on abortion, a country in which all Americans are offered some sort of dignity and hopeful future would be a place conducive to the kind of optimism each of us must hold in our hearts if we are to welcome children into this world. But if our highest aspiration is to be a consumer with no thought or care for our neighbor, we will remain a culture in which abortion is not only inevitable but logical."

If we could care more for our neighbors throughout their life and not just when they might make a trip to an abortion clinic, we'd go a long ways towards fostering a culture that valued all life.

ALLAH AGREES: ITS IMPLANTATION, NOT CONCEPTION

I was pleased to learn on February 7 that Allah agrees that the time in human gestation when we should realize that we are dealing with two individuals, not one, is implantation, not conception, as many Christians hold.

I was among those who learned this from Hassan Hathout ["Ha-toot"?] at the Loma Linda University 2008 Jack W. Provonsha Lecture Series. He is a retired obstetrician, gynecologist and reproductive geneticist who received his advanced medical education at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.

He is also a practicing Muslim and a respected scholar of Islam who now lives with his wife, a retired pathologist, in Pasadena, California. A daughter of theirs is a professor in the LLU School of Medicine.

Hathout was a dignified and quietly eloquent speaker. His mind was clear, his humor contagious and his voice strong. Yet he was frail, standing while he lectured but sitting while he responded cheerfully to questions and comments.

Hathout made it clear that Allah has not specifically addressed this issue; however, twenty or so years ago a number of Islam's top scholars met to see what they could discern about Allah's will from the things about which he has clearly spoken.

The five "postulates" they formulated at the outset were of the greatest interest to me:

1. The selected time should be "clear-cut," easily distinguishable from other ones;

2. The new life should either be growing or capable of this under normal conditions;

3. This step should naturally lead to subsequent ones;

4. The living organism genetically should be a member of the human species; and

5. The selected time should be the earliest one at which the four prior requirements are fulfilled.

These "postulates" point to implantation, not conception, the group concluded, according to Hathout. He did not recoil from the implications:

Artificial Insemination? Yes.

In Vitro Fertilization? Yes.

Contraceptives that prevent implantation? Yes.

Discarding unneeded frozen embryos at In Vitro Fertilization Clinics? Yes.

Embryonic stem cell research? Yes.

The group of Islamic scholars two decades ago did not approve of donor sperm or ova or of surrogate gestation. These come too close to adultery, they held. Also, every attempt should be made not to end up with too many frozen embryos, Hathout stated.

Someone from the audience asked Hathout Islam's stance on abortion. It is banned except as justified by factors that are "more pressing" than the life of the fetus, he explained.

These include abortion to save the woman's physical life. Her mental well-being also counts, "providing we are serious and honest." Fetal anomalies that are inconsistent with life can also justify an abortion, he explained.

Islam is of two views on the issue of rape, he stated. Some see it as an ethical justification for abortion and others don't. Hathout's own view is that it is best not to end the life of the "one true victim." Much better it would be for society to take care of babies born to women who had been raped, he held.

It was not immediately obvious how this position on rape cohered with the earlier approval of abortion to protect a woman's mental health and no one asked Hothout about it.

Also, I think that "adoption" is a better analogy than "adultery" for the use of donated sperm and ova. Also, surrogate gestation can be viewed as "visiting" someone else's home for nine months. This is especially appropriate if the surrogate mother is a sibling of one of the new life's biological parents.

Putting everything together, it is possible for one infant to have at least five parents: (1) sperm donor, (2) ova donor, (3) surrogate mother, (4) parental mother and (5) parental father.

We must say "at least" because if death or divorce separates a husband and wife, and one or both of them remarries, the infant's step father and mother come into the picture. If those marriages end as well.................

I have no unconditional or categorical ethical objections to any of these; however, I have many conditional or hypothetical ones. The more people one involves the more likely it is that there will be misunderstandings and mistakes. These can be very costly!

Many of Hathout’s most provocative words were about Jesus of Nazareth and Christians, not human gestation. “Cast away anything you hear about Islam, especially these days!” he said at the outset. "Christians say that 'God is love' but many of them speak of Muslims with hatred."

We aren't your enemies, he declared. "But even if we were, what does Jesus say? He says 'Love your enemies.'" His wish was that all three Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity and Islam "would obey Jesus on this matter."

It was a pleasure to learn about the ways of Allah from Doctor Hathout. But if Islam is anything like Christianity there are other Muslim scholars who see things differently. They all attempt to discern Allah’s will about issues he has not addressed by reflecting upon ones he has. Those of us who are Christians do the same thing with the Old and New Testaments, and rightly so.

Thank you!

Dave

"To respond to Ed's assertion that a mother can receive a blessing from carrying a child resulting from rape or incest . . . ."

Please re-read my initial comment. I did not make that assertion. Here's the quote:
"For example, some argue that, even in a case of rape or incest, God will bless a woman who carries the baby to term and gives birth.

Assuming, for the moment, that that is true, then it would make sense for Christians, for the church, to encourage (and support) the woman to carry the child and receive that blessing."

Please note: "some argue that. . ." and

"Assuming, for the moment that that is true. . ."

The point was that, even if it were true that a women would be blessed in such an event, it is not the function of the state to tell her so.

IF it were true, Christians might take that position, but the state has no business doing so.

The entire point of my post was that there is a difference between personal morality and what the state should require/enforce.

I took NO position on abortion itself as an issue.

I read with interest Elaine's comment 'The vigorous opponents of abortion should be willing to finance the support of at least one child until the age of 18 or else keep quiet'. I work for an organisation that began in the 1970's as a direct result of such comments. The debate on abortion was raging here in Australia at the time and pro-choice lobbyists threw up such a challenge to those voicing concerns that women were choosing to have abortions because of the lack of social/community support. A core group of people banded together and offered their homes and support to women who saw abortion as their only option because of the lack of social/material support.

Thirty years later the support continues in a more formalised way - material aid (prams, strollers, baby baths, baby clothes etc) is provided free of charge to pregnant women in need and the organisation now runs a transitional housing programme (we can't possibly keep up with the demand for housing but we do what we can!!).

Many contributors to this online discussion have acknowledged that the ultimate choice lies with the women herself about whether to have an abortion or not. Perhaps we ought to be looking beyond the symptom to the cause. If abortion is a socio-economic choice for a woman (and I have counseled many pregnant women who thought it was) then we all collectively are a part of that decision. Do we stop and think what the ramifications of the next round of tax cuts might mean to the poor of our society? Do we engage in debate on how best to support the most vulnerable in our society?

The pro-choice lobbyists have hijacked the word choice. From the pregnant woman's point of view is it really a 'choice' for her to have an abortion if she has 13 children and no social supports? Is it a 'choice' for a Christian teenager to have an abortion if she believes with all her heart that she can't tell her parents she is pregnant because they will disown her if she does? Would the teenager in your congregation think to turn to you for compassion and support if they found themselves pregnant?

Sorry I am getting a bit off David's original topic on when is the beginning of life. For women I work with facing the 'choice' of abortion the issue isn't when did life begin, but when/if will it end.

Sharyn Cameron

This sentence by you is among the very most pertient and powerful that I have read on this subject so far:

"For women I work with facing the 'choice' of abortion the issue isn't when did life begin, but when/if will it end."

Thank you, too, for your entire post and for the magnificently wonderful work that you and your colleagues have been doing for more than thirty years on behalf of women who most our need help, often because the men who enjoyed impregnting them have deliberately disappeared.

"Just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me."

Dave

Abortion rates are very low in the Scandanavian and other countries of Europe. Why? Because there is no stigma to babies born out of wedlock (after all, the innocent baby IS the stigma), and there are generous health care policies, something the U.S. is stingy in providing. Always funds for war; now plans to decrease health care!

Dave,
I would also like to thank the founders, volunteers, and colleagues that have worked and continue to work tirelessly for the organisation I work for. Just to clarify - I have only worked there for 3 years (as a paid social worker). The organisation couldn't do the work it does without the support of the community - the generosity of the public continues to astound and inspire me (baby goods in good condition are dropped off at our office every day).

For a woman who has taken the courageous step to continue with an unplanned pregnancy even when that means abandonment by her partner and/or family and the inevitable financial stress that ensues the practical assistance of baby goods is a deeply meaningful and symbolic act that says 'someone cares about you and your baby'. Hopefully folks reading this who have baby goods they no longer need will be inspired to donate their baby gear to an agency in their local community that works directly in supporting women in need.

Sharyn

Dave

I am puzzled why you would cite Allah for an ethical position. "Allah" is beheading women in Basra for wearing Western garb without a head and face covered.

I think you would find the Pope a better source of Ethics:
the Crusades and Inquisition aside. (I think there was a recent thread on monastic virtues on Spectrum.)

I don't think one should cherry pick moral standards, particularly from those who find "infidels" worthy of death.

I think Gilbert and Sullivan's Opera Mikado a great commentary on Eastern thought.

Peace Tom

Some further reflections on state interference.

When women say "Keep your laws off of my body," what they are saying to me is that they have the right to control the well being of their own body. Here is a scenario that, while not perfect, helps make the point.

Say there is a child very sick with cancer or perhaps needing an organ transplant. One of the parents is a perfect match for an organ or maybe bone marrow. One would expect that the parent would willingly put his/her body in jeopardy and save the life of the child. But what if they refuse? Would the state have a right to step in and insist that the parent go through with the procedure to save the child? I think most of us would feel uncomfortable with the state being that intrusive. And if we think the parent should what about another relative? What about a neighbor? What about a complete stranger?

Are these choices the government should be forcing or do we see them as deeply personal? We don't even agree to let the gov't mandate organ donation after death, we respect that personal space so deeply. I mean these people are DEAD and we still don't let the gov't make choices that would save many many lives.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering a baby involves a certain amount of medical risk to a woman. Not much but some. Does the state have a right to step in and say to the woman that she MUST take on that risk because of the life it would save?

Beth

What amazes me is that Pro-lifers are also anti-child welfare. If one insists that all pregnancies go to full term and delivery, they are also responsible for the post-natal
health and welfare of that child and mother. Tom

Addendum to Dave.

Samuel Zwemer in his 1907 book The Moslem World quotes Sheif Abd ul Hak of Bagdad in an article entitled “The Final Word of Islam to Europe." “For us in the world there are only believers and unbelievers, love, charity, fraternity toward believers; contempt, disgust, hatred, and war against unbelievers. Amongst unbelievers the most hateful and criminal are those who, while recognizing God, attribute to him earthly relationships, give him a son, a mother. Learn then, European observers, that a Christian of no matter what position, from the simple fact that he is a Christian, is in our eyes a blind man fallen from all human dignity."
Page 167 Sheik Abd ul Hak wrote on behalf of the Pan-Islamic League.

Tom

Beth

I see the proper role of government the same way you do. So do the Official SDA Guidelines on Abortion that are available on the General Conference Site.

I think that they are among the best things SDAs have done in recent years even though I was not a member of the Committee that formulated them.

I notice that some attribute today's lower abortion rates to the growing influence of the evangelicals in the United States. Others say that sex education in the pubic schools is probably the thing that has made the postivie difference.

It is also possible that we have fewer abortions today because for thirty and more years women have aborted new lives that were very likely to have themselves needed abortions by now.

Tom

As you say, some Muslims are using the freedoms that democratic socities guarantee their citizens to sabotage these very freedoms. This is a very dangerous situation, primarily for these Muslims. They can annoy the democratic socities but the democratic socities can annihilate them and probably will if they are sufficiently provoked.

But most Muslims around the world have no such intentions and they are just as appalled by their fanatics as we are. Doctor Hathout is one of this vast majority.

I think that one of our goals should be to drive a wider wedge between moderate and manic Muslims. We cannot do this by bombing all of them, in my view. Paul tells us to overcome evil with good. I think that this is our most honorable and realsitic alternative.

Tom
Where did you get the idea that "Pro-lifers are also anti-child welfare'? Like everything there is a spectrum of ideas and viewpoints on every issue and this issue is no exception. Maybe you know someone who is both pro-life and anti-child welfare. I have never met such a person myself but maybe they do exist. You might be interested to know that I work for an organisation that supports women during AND after their pregnancy.

Putting all pro-lifers into the one bucket is like putting all Adventists into the one bucket and saying they all think the same. I venture to suggest that there is a spectrum of thought within the Muslim community just as there is in the Adventist community (or any other community, including the 'pro-life community) - quoting from one Muslim Sheik does not mean that every Muslim espouses his views!

Sharyn

Thanks David

Good view of a terrible human mess. We certainly shouldn't be part of the problem. Tom

Sharyn

Maybe I have lived too long in Georgia. Maybe I have had to testify before the Health and Ecology Committee too often. Maybe I have played too many rounds of golf with pro-lifers

But in my small world Pro-lifers and anti-child welfarers are the same bucket!

Sharyn if you read something in the Good Old Review would you consider it held some official weight? Sheik Abd al Hak views were published in the French version of the official Pan-Islamic league publication. The is as close to the Vatican or Takoma Park as one can get in the Moslem World. Tom

After reading David’s article and the comments that followed, the temptation to respond with a few comments of my own is too great to ignore, especially because my name is included among the comments. I am glad for the opportunity of speaking on behalf of those who cannot speak and plead for their own life. Can I remain silent when the life of millions of innocent unborn babies is sacrificed on the altar of convenience for the crime of not having taken the first breath?

Can I remain silent when my own church, who has from its inception labeled itself to be the God’s “Remnant” church on earth with the ”last message to a perishing world” and “keeping God’s Commandments,” has made an 180 degree turn from the example set by its early pioneers, and decided to bless what they, including James and Ellen White, did curse? Can I remain silent when, according to a survey, five Seventh-day hospitals were offering elective abortions to their clientele? Can I remain silent when, according to SDA historians, the first SDA hospital to offer elective abortions did so for financial reasons? Can I remain silent when non-Adventists protest in front of a SDA institution carrying placards reading: “Remember the Sixth Commandment!”?

Can I remain silent when a former SDA president of the North American Division, and later president of the General Conference publicly declared in the richest country of the world, that the SDA church was leaning towards abortion because “there was too much hunger and overpopulation in the world”? Can I remain silent when a former SDA religious liberty argued that the unborn do not acquire their right to life until they take their first breath? Can I remain silent when the only SDA official document dealing with the abortion issue [Guidelines on Abortion] states in fine print that Jesus died to restore our “freedom of choice”? If this is so, then perhaps Jesus also died to restore the criminal’s right to rape, steal, and abuse little children!

To Bob I say: Take heart. There is a new Pharaoh in town, and the trend on this issue, with God’s grace, does have a chance to force the SDA church to consider the wisdom of returning to the example set by our SDA pioneers who condemned the practice of abortion in the strongest imaginable terms, and labeled it as “murder” instead of “pregnancy interruption,” and “therapeutic abortion.” There is nothing therapeutic about abortion for the baby, but rather pure poison and a violent execution. Would those defending the practice of therapeutic abortion accept such treatment for themselves?

Pay attention to what James Standish, a new Daniel in the GC king’s court, had to say about abortion on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of the legalization of abortion: "But on this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, it is hard to ignore the reality around us. This year more than 1.2 million American babies will be aborted. Of these, approximately 92% will be healthy babies conceived consensually to healthy moms. Over 500,000 of these babies will be at or past the point of development where they have little faces, arms, legs, fingers and toes. ..." [To read his entire article and the comments that followed, click on the following link: http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog/?p=58#comments. Curiously, the chance of posting additional comments on Standish article was closed! Can you guess why?]

To the others I say: Why is it wrong for men to straighten what nine unelected justices of the court twisted over three decades ago? Should not men undo the harm done by other men? Should pro-lifers carry a watermelon for nine months before acquiring the right to come to the rescue of those destined for the execution chamber? Yes, nature does do strange things. It destroys innocent human lives through tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. Does this mean that we should imitate nature? Does the fact that science cannot see the faces of the unborn in the first five weeks of pregnancy with the present technological instruments mean that we should be free to destroy human life in its early stages of developments? Should we not rather err on the side of caution?

Is it wise to discard the Hippocratic Oath which served the Christian church for two millennia quite well? Is it fair to sacrifice one of the victims of rape while letting the guilty live? If our thirst for human blood is so strong, why not shedding the blood of the guilty instead? The “mother should decide”? Since when a life and death decision should be left to the whims of depressed and mentally unbalanced individuals? Is it safe to play God by arguing that some of the unwanted children will later be neglected, unloved, abused, and perhaps killed by their parents? Don’t we realize that by so doing we are also killing those who will be loved and live a life which will bless humanity? Yes, some clever politicians argue that abortion should be “legal, safe, and rare.” Does this make sense? Could we also argue that “rape, burglary, and child abuse should be available, legal, safe, and rare”? What happened to our human common sense?

May I encourage my SDA fellow believers to look at the life of Mother Theresa, who set a brave example for all to follow in this respect, and the example of the one who said: “Since you have done this to the least, you have done it unto me.” Mother Theresa could see the face of Jesus in each neglected human being. Can Adventism produce a saint like this? Shame on us. We allow our SDA institutions to practice the killing of human life, while the Catholic institutions refuse to do so! The Pope may be wrong on the state of the dead, but he is right on the state of the living!

[If anyone is interested in reading my doctoral dissertation on this issue, please click on the following Internet link: http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html You can also read the pro-life material I have on my web site by clicking on http://www.sdaforum.com/page2.html, and http://www.sdaforum.com/page11.html ] May the good Lord bless his church!

Nowhere in your multitudinous comments did I recognize any recognition to the woman who is carrying the fetus. She is the one and only individual that has possession of that potential child. Only when a baby can be safely incubated in vitro from conception to full-term viability, should there even be a question who owns and protects that beginning of life. To suggest otherwise is to make of a woman a "Brave New World" incubator, forced by law to submit to the will of those who dominate her. To promote such surrogate mothers is to denigrate woman to the position of a plant: useful only for bearing fruit.

To those who abhor abortion at all times and all conditions and under any and all circumstances, they should "put their money where their mouth is" and willingly support financialy every child they would rescue from abortion. Sustaining a child through the age of 18 would demonstrate, much more effectively, their position. Simply viewing the cost analysis, an abortion would be far less than 10% of the sustenance required for a child until reaching majority. Throw in a requisite college education, will increase that figure quite dramatically. Either let your actions follow your words, or promote better sex education WITH contraceptive advice. Those states offering both have seen a drop in abortions; those offering abstinence only have not seen the same results. This administration has refuseed to fund programs that offer contraceptive advice if they also perform or mention abortions, a very small part of their practice. As a pragmatist, solutions are to be preferred that recognize and address the problem. In a perfect world there would never be a need for abortions. Who would dare say that is the world we now inhabit?

Vital question: If you are the father of a daughter, or daughters, what would you say or do if she confided to you, at the age of 15, that she was pregnant? Unless you have daughters, you should exempt yourself.

Another question: What do you do if you pregnant wife, following proper testing, has discovered that she is carrying an anencephalic fetus? (Happened to a ob-gyn's wife in my town).
There are many other examples that could be given.

Elaine

You won!

Tom

Tom,

An Oscar?

Elaine,
Nic had a daughter but she was killed in a car accident. I don't know if he has any others.

Elaine

Probably an Oscarette! Tom

Elaine, the financial pledge and pledging part of my life is the personal question I have run against when I have found myself on the edge of the "no compromise anti abortion" camp. This doesn't make a definitive answer to true morality but it does speak of my moral tendencies. I am unwilling to shoulder the responsibility.

Is it true that your liberty stops at where my nose ends? Shouldn't it also be the free choice of the individual involved about pregnancy/abortion? It neither steals my purse nor breaks my leg if my neighbor aborts. Is is NOMB (none of my business) any more than anything else with his/her private life; no more so than their religious beliefs (reproduction may be a religious belief for some).

I have yet to be convinced that such a personal and private decision should not remain just that: personal and private.

Tom,
There are no 'winners; when it comes to a discussion on the issue of abortion. Viewpoints to ponder, but certainly no 'winners'.

To answer your question about the Review. Even though the Review is an official publication of the church and I am a part of the SDA family,I hope that others would not automatically assume that all that is published in it represents all my views on life and the world.

Just because a book is sold in the Adventist Book shop doesn't mean it represents all of Adventism. I do not automatically assume that my Catholic friends agree with everything the Pope says and I don't assume that all Muslims agree with one right wing Shiek, however official sounding he may be.

Now having said that I think you must be a very kind, patient and openhearted person to play many rounds of golf with pro-life anti-child welfare people. I think I might find that rather distressing.

Sharyn

Sharyn

I would agree with you if only history told a different story.

I play golf with them because they invited me to do two things:
teach me better golf and convert me politically--they have been modestly successful at golf I am well on my way to breaking 90. Do about 42- 44 on the front nine and then my 83 years of age and my artifical hips give out and I do about 60 on the back nine.

On politics we have given up on each other. They zing me once and a while and I zing them back. Both sides walk away thinking they won. Babies are still aborted and young children go uncared for. And they still talk about Reagan's Cadillac welfare mom never admitting the Cad was 17 years old the license plate was the only thing in order. Tom

Tom: The comments I am about to post are probably of no consequence, since you have already awarded the Oscar prize to Elaine. I hoped you would be a fair judge and at least wait for my response before issuing your final verdict!

Elaine: For me to accept your arguments in defense for the practice of abortion would require that I ignore the following: God’s injunction against murder, the Old Testament prophets’ prohibition against the shedding of innocent blood, Jesus’ declaration stating that he came that we might have life [instead of death], his warning that our eternal destiny will be based on how we treat the “least of these,” James White’s outright condemnation of abortion as “murder,” Ellen White’s declaration that when a man ignored his pregnant wife’s health he is almost guilty of murder of her unborn child, Mother’s Theresa’s statement that those nations who favor abortion are the poorest [morally speaking], and General Conference James Standish’ lament of the tragic death of 50 million of unborn children since abortion was legalized [Did you read his article referred to in my previous posting?] This is a high price for me to pay for agreeing with your position. I will rather stick to the old Hippocratic Oath which served Christianity for two millennia instead of falling prostrate in front of this modern abortion Moloch idol.

You claim that the unborn is the pregnant woman’s possession. I will rather believe Saint Paul who tells me that said woman does not even own her own body, which belongs to God. You state that pro-lifers should put their money where their mouth is. I have done that! And if you think I have not done enough, let me know. For the last twelve years, I have devoted half of my time to the pro-life cause without any hope or expectation of being compensated for my sacrifice of time and money. Had I invested said time into my real estate business, I would be rich today, which I am not. I have neglected my business for the sake of the unborn, and you are asking me to put my money where my mouth is? You are talking to the wrong guy!

You ask me what I would have done if my 15-year-old daughter had informed me that she was pregnant. I would have prayed for wisdom to convince her to carry the baby to term, and we would have helped her raise the child! I grew in a country where even today abortion is illegal, and women have only one alternative if they are unable to raise their child: adoption.

You argue that the financial cost of raising a child should include a college degree. I got my college degree by hard work and sweat instead of parent’s largesse. At the age of ten I was already working to pay for my school's tuition.Are you saying that without a college degree life is not worth living and that all those without one should have been aborted? Had this been done, most of the world’s population would have never made through the loop! What kind of morality are you preaching?

Evidently, you believe that anencephalic babies should be deprived of the little life God has granted them. I disagree. I had a niece born with spina bifida. She was loved and cared for until her death a few weeks after birth, and she was given a decent burial. There was no regret for having allowed her to be born, and no guilt associated with killing your own child. You suggest that pro-lifers should mind their own business. I believe that you are wrong! Life is Jesus’ business, and we are merely caretakers. We have no right to destroy what belongs to him.

Nic

You certain win on passion if not logic.

Strange you didn't cite God killing all the first born in Egypt or commanding that Saul kill all: man, woman, and child, even the cattle, the puppies, and kittens and the mothers heavy with child. Over that God took the kingdom away from Saul because of his disobedience.

My point is why is it always the woman? If men would behave, there would be a lot fewer unwanted babies. I recall a tent mate coming back from a paid sexual encounter cursing a father for selling him a 13 year old girl for his pleasure. I said, the family was starving what is your problem?

I don't believe in abortion. But I also don't believe in interfering if I am not willing to support, protect, nurture, and educate the issue. There are only two options. One would hope that education and self control would reduce the number of feral children around the world. Tom

Tom: Evidently you missed one extremely important detail. God did destroy the pre-flood generation and he will destroy the wicked at the end. Does this mean that I can do the same? We belong to God, and he can do what he feels appropriate, but I can't. He knows the future, but I don't. Do you see the difference?

Regarding men's responsibility connected with the abortion business, I entirely agree with you. In fact, I would venture to say that a great deal of abortions are done at men's instigation, and it were nine men who got us into this mess which has claimed the lives of 50 million babies already. Had they been allowed to live, they would have been leading productive lives today, and our retirement fund would not be on the verge of bankruptcy.

Nic, are you really complaining that abortion is threatening you of your retitrement?

Nic

You left out all the back alley coat hanger deaths that were prevented by nine old men!

The argument of the "right to privacy" was a strech. But I agree that unless the state wishes to take on parental duties from the womb to the tomb, it had best allow individual choice.

Since you like examples take a look at Rio de Janeiro and the thousands of feral children running wild in the steets--because of a Romon Catholic ban coupled with an uncaring
government.

My point is making demands on others leaves the demander with
unending responsibilities. If a mother chooses to abort, her responsibility is to God. If one prevents abortion that one is responsible to the mother, the child, and to God.

The fact that I am pro-choice does not mean I favor abortion.
It simply means I do not have the emotional nor the financial resources to take responsibility for the consequences of an unwanted birth.

Dick called you on your non sequitur on retirement. A better argument--we need all the babies we can get to pay for Bush's war. Tom

Hi Nic!

Haven't seen you for a while. I hope you're flourishing!

Maybe you can come to this week's Provonsha Lecture. I believe that Bob Orr, who was with us for 10 years before he went home to Vermont, is speaking on profoundly malformed fetuses. You've touched on that issue here.

I don't recall whether we've discussed the moral status of the preemplaned embryo with respect to stem cell research. More than any other, I think that this may be the issue that prompted the theme for this year's series.

I'd be interested in any thoughts that you may have on this particular question above and beyond your more general position on abortion.

Oh, yes, I also wonder about Social Security funding. I think that's a new one on me. I need to see you more often!

Many thanks, Nic!

Dave

Although I am not an advocate of abortion, here are some thoughts I have not heard discussed:
When does the life of a fetus begin? It began with Adam and Eve and has been handed down from generation to generation. The egg of Eve, which had life, was fertilized by the sperm of Adam, which also had life. The resulting live fetus developed into a person and perpetuated that life in the same way, generation by generation until our day.
Life exists independently in each individual cell of a living creature. Each cell has the ability to assimilate food, respond to stimuli and reproduce. Many different kinds of cells compose the various organs of the human body but each cell has life independent of the others. We consider the life in a cell different from the life of a person because a person is capable of consciousness, but this capability exists only when there is a functioning brain with the brain waves turned on. It is the brain waves that make the difference between a person who is "alive" and one who is dead. Physicians often check for brain waves to determine if a person is alive or dead.
A person injured in an accident, without brain waves, is usually considered to be dead. A developing fetus, until it reaches the stage that it has brain waves, is in the same condition as an injured person without brain waves and who is considered dead. The difference is, if the fetus continues to grow, eventually it will have brain waves and become what we call a person. The question is, if the fetus is aborted before it has brain waves, is it really a living person or just a lot of living cells with the potential of becoming a living person?
Some people object to an abortion on the grounds that it deprives a person of the possibility of having life and an existence in this world. If that argument is valid, then we need to do something about fertilizing the unfertilized eggs that millions of women expel each month. Each one has the postential of becoming a living person, if fertilized.
This has been an emotionless approach to the subject. I believe that a mother and father usually have an emotional attachment to a fetus long before it is born, and that is another part of the story. But the above considerations should also be pondered.

An interesting note is that the more education a woman has, the fewer children she has (not because she has abortions, but because she has options to prevent pregnancy). I also recently read a compelling essay by a NY Times columnist about why he reports on issues of violence against women worldwide. He reflected that the countries where women have the least amount of freedom are the countries producing terrorists.

If we go beyond specific arguments of when a cell becomes a life and if those aborted babies could be bailing out our retirements funds to the larger issue of women's rights, I think this issue gets much more complex and compelling. I feel that we often put all of our passion and focus on the wrong end of the spectrum (similar to how we've done with fundamentalism and terrorism issues). We get upset at the very end action--in this case, abortion. What would happen if we directed that fervor towards better education, more support services, anti-poverty initiatives? Women who are educated, healthy, and have strong visions for their futures are far, far less likely to ever be in a situation where they have to make such a difficult and complicated choice. So instead of chastising (or outlawing) them at the abortion clinic, let's look to where we can focus our attention to make a difference in whether or not they'll wind up there in the first place.

Daneen

Excellent points. My sister graduated with me from both dental school and graduate school. In 1950 there were
400 women dentists in the United States. Today women make up at least one third of dental graduates. ( about 1800 annually) The graduate program in dental specialities are 50 percent women. The number of women in medical schools is equal or higher.

The problem is the drop out rate in high school. Try to introduce birth control into a public high school in Georgia.
Tom

Daneen

Excellent points. My sister graduated with me from both dental school and graduate school. In 1950 there were
400 women dentists in the United States. Today women make up at least one third of dental graduates. ( about 1800 annually) The graduate program in dental specialities are 50 percent women. The number of women in medical schools is equal or higher.

The problem is the drop out rate in high school. Try to introduce birth control into a public high school in Georgia.
Tom

Dick: Yes, many of those 50 million of aborted babies would be helping by now to keep the retirement fund solvent. Without them, very soon the retiring baby boom generation will threaten the solvency of said fund. Many countries of the world are facing a population implosion, and in some of them the situation is alarming since the low birth rate, exacerbated by the practice of abortion, is placing a strain on their economies. The countries most affected include Italy, Germany, Japan, and Russia. In the U.S. we don’t seem to notice this because the illegal immigration makes up for the shortage.

Tom: The number of deaths connected with the back-alley abortions before the abortion was legalized pale in comparison with the 50 million babies that followed this shameful event. In a short time following the legalization of abortion, according to Planned Parenthood reports, the number of dead babies resulting from it mushroomed to a million and a half,

Wayne: Yes, human life started with Adam and Eve, but the life of every individual did not start there. The life of every human being has a well marked starting point: fertilization. Only at that point there is a new DNA which characterizes said individual. Prior to this momentous event, neither the egg nor the sperm can claim to possess a unique identity separate from the individual they came from.

You argue that when there is no brain activity, there is no personhood. You are correct from a legal point of view, but not from the ethical one. You assert that when science cannot detect brain activity, the patient is dead, and you conclude that likewise, prior to the development of the brain, the embryo is simply a bunch of cells. I have a question for you: Would you issue a death certificate for a patient whose brain activity seems to have ceased, if you were sure that said brain activity would be activated within a reasonable time, and especially if blood flow could be verified? Well, embryonic blood circulation is present before a woman realizes that she is pregnant. This means that by the time an abortion is performed, there is blood circulation, and there is almost absolute certainty that brain activity will be present in the near future.

Tell me, please: What does this do to your apparently unassailable argument regarding the absence of brain activity? How can you argue that the unborn baby is dead at that stage of development when we know quite well that it is alive and well way before we can detect brain activity? If that baby were dead, there would be no need to kill it! Can you issue a death certificate for a developing unborn baby unless you kill it first? If those babies were really dead before abortion, the nurse would have no need to reassemble the baby parts, head, torso, two legs, and two arms to make sure no residue remains inside the uterus. As you can see, Tom, your argument defies human logic!

Daneen: Terrorism has nothing to do with the absence of legalized abortion. If your argument were true, then I would also conclude that it is the lack of legalized raping, theft, and child abuse, which causes terrorism to flourish!

David: I believe that in the case of embryonic malformations survival of the fetus is severely impacted. The job of physicians is healing instead of killing. Why can’t we let nature take its course? There have been many cases of miss diagnosis, and the lives of healthy babies have been sacrificed due to errors in the detection of malformations. The same can be said about the millions of babies killed for fear that they might be victims of neglect and abuse if allowed to live. Shall we start the genocide of all the human beings who might become victims of neglect and abuse?

Regarding your question about the morality connected with pre-implanted embryos, my guess is that it is always wise to err on the side of caution. Nevertheless, my mission is centered on the practice of abortion instead of artificial insemination and fertility treatments.

Nic,
You wrote in relation to the rise of elderly, suggesting population decline is a reason to oppose abortion, that "In the U.S. we don’t seem to notice this because the illegal immigration makes up for the shortage."

Where does that come from? Is that a deduction you've made because the numbers don't support your statements- both of them. Of course projections show that immigrants are driving growth in this country. According to Pew at least the ratio of elderly to working adults will not improve.

I find the notion that societies should regulate, up or down, the reproduction of its members to be quite disturbing. Haven't you cited a statement linking our approach to abortion and over-population by an Adventist church leader as an example of what is wrong?

Frankly either argument, stated negatively or positively, bothers me. In respect to population growth, negatively or positively, I see reproduction as being extremely personal, private and sacred and find the notion of society or other individuals coming in between the sheets to be repugnant- it goes against both my religion and politics.

The biggest irony may be that outlawing contraception and abortion leads in fact to more dangerous illegal abortions and deaths. This was true in the England of Vera Drake, the United States before Roe v. Wade and is true again in the Philippines today.

Nic

I see no need to continue our discussion on this topic. We are both against abortion. We differ in that you would impose your views on others without taking responsibility for the outcome. I would not impose my will without taking responsibility for the result. I probably should ask you your views on the Blue Laws. Tom

Johnny: Thanks for your comments and for your email communication. You asked me for the source of my statistics. You can verify this by typing “American birth rate” on your computer browser. Let me quote one source:

“That statement comes from an article in the February 13, 2002, issue of the newspaper USA Today, citing numbers from the National Center for Health Statistics, an agency of the US government. According to the article, the NCHS had just completed tabulating statistics for 2000. And if we take the numbers for that year and assumed they remained constant for all women for the rest of their lives, we find that the average American woman would have 2.1 children in her lifetime. This is just barely enough to replace herself and one man when they die. The last time that American women were having enough children to keep pace with deaths was in 1971. For the past 30 years, the United States has been a course that would lead to the dwindling and eventual extinction of its population."
[http://www.pregnantpause.org/overpop/usbirth.htm]

I agree with you that “immigrants are driving growth in America.” Immigrants have always been the backbone of the strength of our country. I am not opposed to immigration. What I am opposed is to illegal immigration and I am opposed to our dependency on said source for filling the shortage exacerbated by the legalization of abortion. You state that controlling reproduction is repugnant to your religion. I respond that giving a carte blanche to individuals to murder their own innocent children goes against God’s religion.

I also agree that making abortion illegal will increase illegal abortions; nevertheless, this will pale when compared with the destruction of a million and a half innocent human lives per year. The statistics of illegal abortions before Roe v Wade were the result of fabrication, and I can document this if you so desire. Finally, I want to clarify that the fact that I am fluent in Spanish does not make me a Hispanic. I was born in Ukraine and I entered the U.S. legally.

Tom: Ending our discussion is at your personal discretion. As long as you raise new issues, I am duty bound to respond. You are opposed to declaring abortion illegal. Do not forget that abortion was illegal for two thousand years, and that it is still illegal in many countries, countries where SDA evangelism is healthy and growing, which is not true about the U.S. The duty of our government is to protect all human beings within our territory. Right now if someone kills an unborn baby, he goes to jail, but if an abortionist does it he is protected. If a pregnant woman is murdered, society often counts this as a double murder, but if the abortionist murders the unborn child, no crime has been committed. This is sheer madness to me.

Regarding Blue Laws, we are in agreement, I believe. There is ethically a whale of a difference, though, between breaking the Sabbath and braking the bones of an innocent unborn baby. Worshipping the Lord on the wrong day of the week does not deprive anybody of life. Abortion has deprived 50 million innocent babies of life. These unborn children belong to God. Paul says that we do not own even our own bodies. Jesus stated that anyone who offends “these little ones” he better hang a stone on his neck and throw himself into the ocean. I don’t want to be one of them. Jesus also stated that our final destiny will be determined by the way we treat “these little ones,” and no human being is more entitled to be counted among the little ones than the unborn.

May the good Lord bless our decision on this issue in spite of our shortcomings!

I guess God was actually a mistreater of a young female for bringing Jesus into this world as the Savior, while he most certainly could have giving us a Jesus, made like Adam and Eve. It seems like within Adventist thinking, if Jesus were to enter the world now they way he did back than, the Loma Linda Scientist might say to that young lady: Come quickly to the Loma Linda Hospital and will take care of it right away, before the baby turns into something like a human being, called magnificent life before being born? Yes, as if a newly born baby knows really the difference and actually, and not truly than being fully human, until able to reproduce many years later! I can only wonder if some unborn baby killed by abortion might get into the Kingdom while parents remain outside forever? Please do not stone me for such a comment, which some may be moved to do so?

I am still having trouble grasping a concept of unlimited population growth to support the older generation. Or have I misunderstood? It would sooner or later collapse unless we factor in God saving us which although a strong belief, has proven to be unpredictable timing wise.

And Johnny, being decidedly against societies regulating reproduction, you certainly must be against 13 and14 year olds reproducing and for some sort of sex education amidst a society.

Dick,
I addressed a narrow and specific argument/ suggestion which you have widened beyond the scope of not only my response, but the initial suggestion Nic was making. Your question introduces an added factor, youth, which was not present.

Nic,
I kept part of the conversation on the blog, part within email. That division was not reciprocated and you chose to respond to both exchanges on a public comment. It is certainly a breach of email etiquette and is not appreciated.

Thank, Nic!
I appreciate the elaboration.
Dave

Nic

History validates nothing. Execpt man's inhumanity to man. Tom

Hugo: If Jesus were to come again as he came the first time, God would make sure his delivery is cared for in a Catholic hospital.

Dick: If your first comment was directed at me, then I ask: Did I ever suggest “unlimited population”? Let me remind you of the many alternative ways of controlling the population short of poisoning or dismembering unborn babies.

Johnny: Thank you for your comments. You claim that I am guilty of breaching “email etiquette.” If I am in fact guilty, I apologize to you. I do admire you as a great teacher, and I had no intention of offending your sensibility. I just reviewed my previous comments to you, and I find no confidential details in my public posting. Did I reveal any of the contents of your email communication? I merely clarified that my ethnicity is not Hispanic but rather Ukrainian.

I have lived in half a dozen countries for many years, and most of them have considered me as their citizen, including Ukraine, Poland, Russia, Paraguay, Argentina, and the U.S. While in South America, I was often referred to as “El Ruso.” This means that people considered me, not Hispanic, but rather, of Russian extraction. My birth certificate is written in Polish, my ethnic ancestry is Ukranian, I was a citizen of the Soviet Union until 1990, and I lost my Argentinean citizenship when I became a citizen of the U.S. This is why I did not consider to be entitled to be considered of Hispanic extraction.

My question to you: Does my publicly revealing my true ethnic ancestry a breach of email etiquette? If yes, then my apology to you. I felt that publicly revealing my true background was my personal privilege. Of course, I could be wrong, and it would not be the first time I have been wrong. I hope I am not wrong on what is really important: my views on abortion.

Nic, it was not fair of me to insinuate that you were advocating unlimited population growth. I was trying to project and have to admit that I don't know if a one to one ratio of working people to people drawing on their retirement fund is what it takes to make the fund flush. I assumed it is not one to one and because of that the 50 million would need more then 50 million to fund their retirement and well that would lead to unlimited growth to fund retirement. This all says nothing to the moral or immoral nature of abortion.

Johnny you seem a bit sensitive. You broadened the field to controlled reproduction which is more then the abortion issue. My point was that when it comes to reproduction we as a society can certainly work to manipulate increase or decrease. I gave an extreme example, youth, and hopefully a commonly accepted example, sex education.

Dave: Could you tell us when and where is the Provoncha's Lecture scheduled to take place?

Tom: I agree! History is simply the record of rights and wrongs. Fortunately, the Lord has granted us both common sense and the assistance of the Holy Spirit to distinguish between the two.

Dick: A one to one ratio should work for certain countries like China and India where every inch of land is occupied by human beings and animals. America, on the other hand, could afford the luxury of expanding its population, since there is plenty of empty spaces in the Republic of Texas and elsewhere. Given an expansion policy, there should be no problem with the social security fund's solvency.

The problem surfaces when the population begins to contract and the ratio of retirees increases while the working force is shrinking. This is where the practice of abortion becomes a serious detriment to the fiscal health of the country. Nevertheless, this anomalous situation pales when compared with the moral impact of abortion on the people.

This is my humble opinion!

Nic

Your equation is too simple. There is the production factor.
In third world countries your model has stood for centuries.

The Cotton Gin and the International harvester changed all that.

Can you remember back to the first administration of FDR and the Corn Hog Act in which farmers were paid for not raising
crops?

But we certainly are a far away from the thesis that introduced this thread.

We agree that the procreation is a priviledge and a sacred responsibility. We differ on the degrees of civil restraint.

Tom

Dick and whomever,
I disagree with Nics suggestion that illegal immigration is somewhat responsible, because of its obscuring the impact of our aging population by abortion, for our response to abortion. The objection is twofold- the first was on his ideas on immigration and the second on the idea that macro concerns on the ability of our aging population to support itself (i.e. population control) should shape our moral view of abortion.

Answering your question I would say that the locus of my concern when it comes to thirteen year olds having sex and/or abortion isn't our aging population but rather the well being of the teenage individual(s) in question.

Nic,
1. You may be confusing me with my father whose name I share.
2. We attended the same Sabbath school for almost 2 years.
3. I've heard you, in person, talk about your passion, fighting abortion, countless times. online even more.
4. I take you seriously and give your comments my respectful considered thought.
5. Your comment got my response not only in the abstract but, as personal as online communication gets, via email.
6. I'm disappointed with the mixing of personal and public mediums. It doesn't do much to build trust.

The states issue marriage licenses. There are no licenses granted for sexual intercourse. Since it is only the latter that causes pregnancy, and only pregnancy is the only reason for abortions, does anyone suggest: 1)giving license for intercourse or, 2) return to the chastity belts of the middle ages? How invasive do we wish our government to be? Bedroom surveillances?

Nic
The Provonsha Lectures are at [appropriately enough!] Randall Visitors Center, Thursdays, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m. I will miss this week to celebrate Valentine's Day. Hope to see you next week! Thanks for your contributions to this discussion. It is an important one about which you have done much study!
Dave

Tom: I still believe that there is an undeniable connection between the abortion issue and the solvency of the social security fund. This will be more patent as the number of retirees increases with time. The contribution to the work force of the 50 million babies that were aborted will be missed and there will be a financial price to pay for our lack of vision. Does this bother me? Not as much as the mass genocide of the most innocent members of humanity, and especially the fact that our church made the big mistake of allowing our medical institutions to be involved in this shameful extermination of the unborn.

I believe that the Lord will not take this moral lapse lightly. There will be a terrible price to pay, unless we repent. Recently, the Austrian and German SDA leadership publicly apologized for the church collaboration with the Nazi regime. Our church is repeating history in America. Not so, in many other countries of the world. I can give you details, if you are interested. The lack of proper civil restraint is tragic, and the main culprit is Congress, which has allowed unelected justices of the court to rule from the bench and carve laws out of thin air without proper Constitutional support.

Johnny: I need to clarify that I did not suggest that illegal immigrants are responsible for the problems connected with abortion. Actually, they are filling the void created by the mass extermination of the unborn. Were it not for the illegal immigrants, the U.S. population would be at dangerous levels by now. Nevertheless, I think that it is rather foolish and irresponsible to allow a porous border to continue to exist. We need to know who is here and we need to be fair to those who are patiently waiting for their chance to enter the U.S. legally.

I agree with you that our abortion policy should not be determined by population trends and the solvency or insolvency of our social security fund. Abortion is a moral issue that needs to be treated from a strictly ethical position. If abortion is wrong, then we should set aside any financial consideration in the process of setting our policies.

Thanks for clarifying your identity. I wasn’t sure, and I did assume that I was dealing with your father. You do have a great dad, and you probably did inherit his exceptional talents. In Spanish we say, “De cual palo tal astilla.” Like father, like son, is the closest English saying I can think of.

Elaine: I am not suggesting that the police should get into our bedrooms. Most abortions are performed inside the abortion clinics, and not inside our bedrooms. Crime should be punished regardless of where it is done. I would penalize the perpetrator. Most women are victims of their either husbands, their boyfriends, the society, and the abortionists. I would jail all abortionists for profiting from the deaths of innocent unborn babies. If I had the power, I would also cut the SDA connection between the church organization and any SDA medical institution unwilling to stop the practice of abortion, especially the elective abortions.

David: Thanks for the information!

ARE OUR VIEWS ABOUT THE MORAL STATUS OF THE HUMAN EMBRYO INCONSISTENT?
By David Larson

Whether it is possible to make sense of the apparently inconsistent things we often say about the moral status of the human embryo is the question MARUEEN SANDER-STAUDT addressed on Thursday evening, February 21, in the sixth presentation of the Loma Linda University 2008 JACK W. PROVONSHA LECTURE SERIES.

A specialist in GENDER THEORY and FEMINIST ETHICS with a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder, she now teaches in the New College of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences on the West Campus of Arizona State University in Phoenix.

The title of her presentation was “Care Ethics and the Variable Moral Status of the Unborn in Abortion, Stem Cell Research and Crimes Against Pregnant Women.”

On the one hand, in nations like the United States we have fairly permissive public polices regarding abortion and we allow at least some stem cell research. On the other, in these same societies we sometimes charge those who intentionally kill pregnant women with two and not merely one count of murder.

Either the first position, which does not regard the embryo as a protected citizen, or the second stance, which does, can be right. They can’t both be valid, so the argument goes. Sander-Standt disagreed. These two positions are not actually inconsistent, she claimed. Or even if they not wholly compatible, their partial incoherence is not pernicious.

Although she swiftly and copiously considered other points of view, often moving back and forth between them instead of following single lines of thought from beginning to end, when all was said and done it was evident that her conclusion flowed from a single conviction. This is that the moral status of the human embryo is partly inherent and partly conferred. In other words, the embryo’s worth depends upon its value to itself and its value to others and that both increase as the pregnancy progresses.

Whether the moral status of the human embryo rightly depends at least in part upon how we view it and that this legitimately varies from person to person and from circumstance to circumstance, was her controversial claim. If she was right, the different things we say about it are not inconsistent. If she is mistaken, they probably are.

are ethics and feminist ethics are among the contemporary theories of the moral life that we human beings are thoroughly relational, she argued From these points of view we cannot consider either the human embryo and the pregnant woman apart from the other. Because they are unavoidably related, the value of one depends upon the worth the other places on it.

Sander-Staudt said much about how importance of the pregnant woman’s assessments of the embryo’s worth. She said nothing about the importance of the embryo’s assessment of the pregnant woman’s worth. Presumably it thinks “very little” of her, especially in the early months.

But what does this mean, if anything?

A delegate to the Utah Republican Convention was arguing that a fence should be constructed along the entire U.S.-Mexican border, to prevent illegal immigrants from entering. This is the dialogue:

GOP official: What happens when they [illegals] climb the fence?

Delegate: You electrify it. Then they won't touch it.

Official: But what if they touch it? You would let them die?

Delegate: It would be their choice.

Official: What about a mother with a baby strapped to her back? You would let the mother and the baby die?

Delegate: It would be the mother's choice to kill that baby.

Official: Then you're in favor of abortion?

[Dead silence]

ANDY LAMPKIN REJECTS LETHAL HUMAN EMBRYONIC RESEARCH
by David Larson

"Not if it involves the destruction of the embryo," Andy Lampkin responded when asked if he thought Loma Linda University should do stem cell research.

This question came up following his presentation on February 26 titled "Beyond Mystery: Toward Untangling the Moral Controversy Surrounding the Moral Status of Embryonic Human Life and Stem Cell Research." This was the seventh meeting in the "2008 Jack W. Provonsha Lecture Series" at LLU.

The series is presented by the Center for Christian Bioethics. Mark Carr is the Director and Dawn Gordon is the Manager. It is possible to visit the Center at www.llu.edu/llu/bioethics.

Lampkin teaches in the LLU School of Religion where he is also conducting on a major grant a study of why certain groups are especially wary of medical research. He received his doctorate in ethics at Vanderbilt University.

He developed his case in three steps. He reviewed the more or less secular arguments for emphasizing the continuity between human embryos and adults. He also reviewed similar arguments for emphasizing their discontinity. In the end he cast his vote in favor of the first of these because of the specific ethical concerns of the Christian community of faith. These estabish great moral status to human embryoinc and adult life, he contended.

Lampkin developed this line of thought by appealing to the Christian beliefs that God created human life in the divine image and that God's incarnation in vulnerable human life exhibits its great value. He cited pasagaes in Scripture from Genesis, Psalms, Job, Ecclesiasties and Jeremiah. He appealed to a passage in II Maccabees as well.

When asked in the question and answer period if when they are in mortal conflict he favors the life of the pregnant woman or the embryo, he chose the first. Despite how he had sometimes earlier expressed himself, this shows that Lampkin does not believe that the embryo and the woman possess equal moral status.

Although Lampkin did not say this, there are only a few circumstances in which it might be possible to save the life of the embryo but not the pregnant woman's. In the overriding majority of such cases the choice is between letting them both die, on the one hand, or saving the woman, on the other. Saving the embryo but not the pregnant woman is not usually a true option.

He reminded the audience that we rarely divide humans into this group and that in order treat them both better. We usually exploit one group for the apparent sake of the other and this is ethically unacceptable.

After the meeting concluded, Lampkin and a scientist on campus continued a friendly debate about whether an infant born with anencephaly is genuinely "human." They went back and forth with the scientist saying "no" and Lamkin the theologian and ethicist saying "yes," a reversal of what one might expect. "It will never know anything about its environemnt," the scientist asserted. "But if it isn't human life, what is it?" Lampkin inquired.

As frequently happens in such conversations, Lampkin and the local scientist were using the term "human" in different ways. For Lampkin its meaning was biological: a baby born with anencephaly is certainly a member of our species. The scientist was using the term functionally. It was not and never would be able consciously to interact with its environment.

Wanted: Someone to Play God. Science has given us childbirth miracles.(Nancy Gibbs,Time,March 3, excerpted)

The making, storing and selling of embryos is now a $4 billion industry, the most private that largely polices itself. Liberals worry about egg selling and womb rental. Consrvatives struggle to explain why they oppose using leftover frozen embryos for stem-cell research but don't oppose their creation in the first place.

In their new book; "Embryo: A Defense of Human Life," two university professors argue for treating the embryo as inviolable, contending that the embryho is a whole, living member of the human species in its earliest stage of development...and if destroyed, that particular individual has perished. From that conviction arise their rules for both research and reproduction: Don't create more embryos that you will implant. No freezing, no choosing, no storing for future use and no experimenting on them.

Much of Europe, where government subsidizes more of the costs and so controls some of the risks, result in both Italy and Germany forbidding embryo storage; England limits doctors to implanting two embryos, or three if a woman is over 40.

But what about the half a million lifetover emnbryos, now nestling in nitrogen? "What you do with the frozen embryos you don't use is your decision and yours alone," says the American Fertility Association. Are they people or property? Stored embryos have been treated as part of an estate and the center of custody fights. Consedrvatives promote adoption as an answer, but some patients don't want their genetic offspring being raised by other people. Should they be required to keep them frozen indefinitely? Should governments pay for custody--and have the right to decide who gets them?

In the U.K. researchers offer women reduced rates on fertility treatment if they agree to donate half their harvested eggs for research.

Couples can now screen out embryos for cystic fibrosis and cancer risk. Should they also be allowed to screen for gender, blond, smart, straight or gay? We are on a road toward reproduction that doesn't require eggs and sperm at all. This is a moral wilderness. We've been conducting these methods in private but we need to make sure that we weigh the risks before we embrace the promise.

Elaine,

I am responding to the following hypothetical scenario you posted above:

"Official: What about a mother with a baby strapped to her back? You would let the mother and the baby die?

Delegate: It would be the mother's choice to kill that baby.

Official: Then you're in favor of abortion?"

*********

The apparent inference that the delegate would then be pro-abortion is unwarranted. If a pregnant woman were to stand on the railroad tracks in front of an incoming train doesn't mean that those who approved the construction of the railroad line were pro-abortion.

Nic, earlier you stated "Is it wise to discard the Hippocratic Oath which served the Christian church for two millennia quite well?" as well as mentioning the Hippocratic oath in several other places in this thread. I just wanted to remind you of what it actually says.

"I SWEAR by Apollo the physician and AEsculapius, and Hygiea, and Panacea, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation-- to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further, from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times. But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot."

Explain to me how something inherently devoted to Greco-Roman deities is "Christian" and also why the prohibition against surgery should be kept today, when it is no longer the incredibly dangerous and barbaric practice it was at that time. Also notice that the oath says nothing of informed consent, a keystone of modern medical ethics, and only bars the use of a abortificant pessary, which may have been more dangerous than other abortive measures available. Even if it were a clear blanket ban on abortion, is this oath truly still applicable in a day where the medical field is no longer treated like a secret cult of ancient deities?

David, you said: "I think it helpful to distinguish more sharply than Fedler did between possible persons (sperm, ova or un-implanted embryos), potential persons (implanted embryos) and actual persons (fetuses).

Biologically, neither sperm or ova are embryos prior to fertilization, followed by implantation. If so, the millions of sperm that are wasted daily would be killing potential persons. This could not have been what you meant. Even blastocysts are discarded regularly, without the potential mother being aware. Both ovum and sperm are eliminated regularly without anyone claiming "killing of persons."

Elaine,

You posted the original version of the Hippocratic Oath. I hope you are aware that it suffered many updates throughout history. The Hippocratic Oath is not like the Decalogue, which was written by God. This physicians oath was written by a very intelligent and seemingly honest man who attempted to establish a contrast between healing and killing, between helping a patient recover and doing him/her harm.

Let me cite the modern version of the same oath, which preserves the essential moral elements of what Hippocrates had stated:

*********

A.D. 1995 Restatement of the Oath of Hippocrates.
(circa 400 B.C.)

I SWEAR in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation:

TO RECKON all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.

I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform act or omission with direct intent deliberately to end a human life. I will maintain the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.

WITH PURITY, HOLINESS AND BENEFICENCE I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient.

WHATEVER IN CONNECTION with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

WHILE I CONTINUE to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.w...

*********
Notice that when our Adventist Church officially adopted our current "Guidelines on Abortion" the fundamental wall of separation between healing and killing was destroyed. Physicians who had for centuries been trained for healing, were now given the green light to also engage in killing.

Notice also that this new version of the oath does include a statement about proper consent, but within limits that preclude harming the patient.

The pagan origin is totally irrelevant, since it agrees with the principle of doing no harm, and the fact that it forbids the taking of human life, which is a fundamental tenet found in the Scriptures.

The Bible tells us to examine everything, and to preserve what is good. The Hippocratic Oath has precious moral ore in it, and this is what was preserved for posterity. Christians adopted its basic moral principles for the simple reason that it did harmonize with the teachings of Christianity and the truths taught by Jesus Christ.

Hi Nic!

Just to be explict, I hold that the following are possible but not potential human persons: (1) an ovum, (2) a sperm and (3) an unimplanted conceptus. Not everyone agrees with (3). Do you?

The difference is that a potential human person possess the inner power [potency] to become a human person if nothing goes wrong but the possible doesn't.

laercio addressed a question to you and me about rape and abortion over at "Raping Children, Executing Criminals and Second Guessing the U. S. Supreme Court." I responded. If you haven't already done so, you might want to as well.

What' the name of "The Body" exhibit that's so excellent? We went through it in Las Vegas last week. The fetal development specimens are very impressive and thought provoking, as is the whole exhibition.

Thanks!

Dave

Ummm, Nic, you do realize that, as you wrote, that new version is less than two decades old, and therefore cannot possibly be the one you were defending, right? Jemand's point still stands.

Nic, you wrote:

"Elaine,

You posted the original version of the Hippocratic Oath."

Sorry, wrong person. I did not post that, period.

One wonderful concept from our U.S. constitution and its laws is the right to be left alone. Although not explicitly stated, it has been hashed out in many occurences over the years. If someone is anti-abortion, no one is forcing her to have an abortion. By the same token, if someone find abortion abhorent, only in China would she be forced to abort. Any time the government control individual's reproductive rights, they, not you, will make those choices for you. In China there are thousands of forced abortions, many at a late stage; there are forced vasectomies. Anyone for that?

If your next door neighbor or co-worker has an abortion, she certainly is not going to tell you or ask your opinion. Pray tell, how can that possibly affect you in any way?

The old saying: "If men became pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Until that possibility, take your hands off us females and recognize that we are competent adults, able to make own very personal decisions!

David,

I see a fundamental difference between both the ovum and sperm, and an unimplanted conceptus. In the case of the first two, their DNA is identical to that of the donor. They do not possess an identity that is unique to them.

The unimplanted conceptus, on the other hand, possesses its own unique DNA entirely different from the donors of both the ovum and the sperm. All the conceptus needs is to grow. Like a newborn child, all it needs is nourishment and the right environment for it to become with time an independent functional human being.

What empowers the ovum to become a potential human being is fertilization. Once fertilized, it becomes a new human being, unique by its identity, small in size, but with all the "inner power" for growth given the right environment and proper nourishment.

Niemand,

What I have been defending are the basic moral elements contained in the Hippocratic oath. Said oath has been adapted throughout history, but the fundamental principles of doing no harm to the patients and the avoidance of abortion were preserved until the U.S. Supreme Court decided to thrash it with the blessing of our Adventist Church.

Elaine,

You are right. I have no idea how I happened to credit you with the posting of the Hippocratic Oath. I knew it was Jemand. Sorry about the typo!

Regarding your defense of women's right to abort, my answer is: The unborn baby is not an object. It is a human being. This means that it is not something the woman, or anybody else has the right to destroy.

If I take a sledge hammer and beat my brand-new car to pulp, nobody has the right to object. It belongs to me, and I can do with it whatever I want, provided I do not harm somebody else. If I do the same to my dog, the police will put me in jail for exhibiting cruelty to animals.

The main difference between a born and an unborn child is a single breath of air. The two basic abortion procedures involve either dismemberment or else poisoning. There have been cases where a baby manages to survive the poison that was meant to kill it, and the victim has to be treated for the severe burns to its skin.

In the case of dismemberment, the abortionists pulls an arm, a leg, the other arm, and crushes the head. In both cases the procedure is rather gruesome. I presume you must have seen pictures of aborted babies. How human beings dare to justify such cruelty blows my mind!

When I was probably nine years of age, one day my mother told me that, since my dad was away, it was my duty to kill the chicken. [This was before I became a vegetarian.] I followed my mother's orders. I held the poor bird tight, and let the ax drop with full force. In my inexperience, I managed to sever merely the poor bird's beak, and the chicken ran away. I told my mother that this was the first time and the last I would attempt to kill another animal.

Killing is exactly the opposite of healing. Physicians are trained to heal, yet the government gives them license to kill innocent members of the human race. This is morally abhorrent.

Women were endowed by God with the power to protect, nourish, and love. When they act in opposition to what they were blessed with, they become the tools of the one who has been a "murderer from the beginning." Please, stop defending this kind of atrocity!