Neal Anderth wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Nothing you presented would stop a woman from getting an abortion.

And what are we suppose to take 'the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed' to mean?

So, to demonstrate the cutting edge of science, you cite a 1959 medical bulletin

Anyone who can't understand this is more than "access to health care" is, again, removing any ethical consideration from the matter. I think that is a grievous mistake.

rickyp wrote:fate

So, to demonstrate the cutting edge of science, you cite a 1959 medical bulletin

Has science changed its opinion that conception is implantation - not fertilization?

“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George

“Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” – Dr. Robert George

fate

Anyone who can't understand this is more than "access to health care" is, again, removing any ethical consideration from the matter. I think that is a grievous mistake.

Women are going to get abortions whether its legal or not. Or whether or not the governemnt makes it more honerous by limiting health care funding.
They are making the ethical decision themselves.
Which is how it should be.

The laws changed on abortion because women were dieing when they got illegal abortions.
Changing the law back to the year 1900 and making abortions illegal won't stop women from getting abortions. It didn't before.

But it might cause some of them to die, seeking abortions from providrs who aren't qualified or safe, because they've been made illegal or the government has stopped funding abortion provision.

So yeah. In reality its only an issue about womens health.

The discussion was on when life begins. So, you seem to be veering into what conception is.

Source for your bolded comment?

Did I propose making abortion illegal?

rickyp wrote:Me. Its my opinion. Do you agree that the ethical decision is private?

I suspect you and I actually do agree that the ethical decision becomes a "public" matter at the point where we beleive we are definitely protecting a life. For me that is when the fetus is viable. For you, at conception?

dr Fate

Did I propose making abortion illegal?

Its not all about you.
But if you cowrote the bill sponsored by Ryan and Akin you proposed making it more difficult for poor women to attain.

And the republican NC just passed a platform that includes a strict limit. And thats whats precipitated this renewed debate on abortion and womens health.

freeman2 wrote:NA makes some good points here.

As long as the pro-life movement is focuses on taking power away from women (infringing on their right of privacy) in making reproductive decisions they are destined to lose the abortion fight.

In the 1930s, licensed physicians performed an estimate 800,000 abortions a year.[5] Illegal abortions were often unsafe, sometimes resulting in death, as in the case of Gerri Santoro of Connecticut in 1964.
wikipedia
making abortion illegal didn't really lessen its use.