@David Tatarowicz...You're right on the mark with your comment. I feel, that currently we are at the only compromise that can be attained. However, I don't think that the pro-choice position is inspired by religion as much as it is driven by the principles of secular humanism. This is really a showdown between science and religious belief, which neither can give us a definitive answer.

No one is ever forced to take birth control or to terminate a pregnancy. Those, who for religious reasons find that birth control and pregnancy termination are repugnant do not have to engage in such activities. To engage or not to engage is clearly a function of free agency. The exercise of free choice is truly a human characteristic and should not be unreasonably inhibited.

@Lyle
Isn't "principles of secular humanism" a religion by its own right? Not unlike Bob questioning why it can be a baby when the mother wants and cannot be a baby when the mother rejects it; claiming one set of beliefs is a religion while the opposite set of beliefs is not, is not logical. I am Christian because of what I believe; not hair color, eye color or clothing. A secular humanist is that because of their beliefs. Therefore, it is a belief vs belief; rather than science vs religion. Attempting to make the science vs religion argument is an extreme form of propaganda.

As for you the personhood amendment, that dead horse has been beaten long enough this week on Patch.

JB, instead of telling us you are a Christian, why don't you show us you are a Christian. That's the kind of thing that might lead to fewer people choosing the be atheists.

@Keith,

I've seen you mention that you go to church, which tends to make me not want to go one, least of all the one you attend.

J. B. Schmidt's point was philosophically sound. So your personal attack does not diminish its affect.

I love you Keith.

@J.B. Schmidt....Secular humanism doesn't incorporate religious belief, but depends on rational logic. Religion involves supernatural explanations and beliefs in supernatural forces beyond human understanding.

@Lyle
A belief system is a belief system and your interpretation of it using rational logic is the faith of secular humanism.

Secular science has it base in faith. The formation of the universe is neither confirmed nor agreed upon. It is assumed that certain things were required for the formation of the universe and life; however, proof is not within grasp unless they can reproduce or come to complete agreement as to the creation of both.

When secular science determines when life has the right to exist; it is also neither agreed nor confirmed. As I focused a blog around the idea that some in the secular science could make the argument that the non-human status of a child could extend beyond birth; while others attempt to place the existence of life nearer to the 8 or 9 week mark. This discrepancy within the secular community demands that those accept either view do so with faith.

Lastly, the placement of a supernatural entity (ie god) as the sole determining factor for the existence of religion is also subjective. The faith that life was created via evolution requires that chance and randomness replace and step into the role of the supernatural entity.

Rational logic is based on which system you want to place your faith. We both know that both of us could write blogs rationalizing the creation of both life and the universe. Both us could produce scientific facts to back our case. In the end we both know faith is required to accept both.

Lyle,

On the contrary. Humanism has its own presuppositions, given that the material world does not dictate propositional values. Therefore, social convention is the basis, contrary to what some would like to think. Hence T. S. Kuhn.

Religion may or may not be utilized in the manner in which you describe.

Beliefs differ. That's the point. So we don't get to insist that you must do something that is hateful to you. But you don't get to insist that we can't.

@J.B. Schmidt...I agree that what we accept as knowledge is based on a belief system, but what separates belief is consensus of belief. Just as in the arguments for evolution, the critical principle is called 'long time'. Those who attribute creation to a supreme creator have no evidence supporting their views except belief. Whereas, science repeatedly confirms the process of evolution over 'long time'. Going beyond the common belief in cause and effect bars religion and evokes a need for a higher understanding. As scientific knowledge has grown, the less needs to be explained through religion. Assuming that just because two gametes have conjoined to create a single cell with a full set of molecular coded DNA does not justify granting human agency. Logic dictates that if agency should be granted prior to birth, then it would be somewhere far beyond the zygote and to a fetus that could be viable outside of the uterus.

@Luke...With your background in neuropsychology, you know full well that the gestational process is long and is incomplete until far into the pregnancy. Establishing human agency before the fetus is fully developed is disingenuous. Of course secular humanism and science is based on suppositions. However, science supports the evolutionary process through observation and experimentation. Whereas, religion has no such device to validate its suppositions.

In addition, granting human agency on the newborn may, in and of itself, be premature when the definition of agency is taken into account and the development process of a human is counted. Agency may not be legitimately conferred until maybe as late as 4 to 6 weeks after birth, choice being the critical variable.

Lyle,

But you are making my point. If we select the ability to make a choice to be the critical factor of determining human agency, then many animals are human. Of course, you aren't suggesting that, but I'm trying to point out what an arbitrary attribute you selected. Heck, this summer one study was released that indicates that rats can count. The truth is that, other than certain levels of language, we can arbitrarily justify killing a child up to the age of 2 or 3.

That said, any of your assumptions contain, or are supported by, any number of other assumptions. It is not empiricism or even instrumentalism that guides your selection of attributes. Why not use an anthropological reference, such as when women tend to first start referring to the fetus as their child? Again, arbitrary.

The truth is that Humanism is not the source of morality or ethics. Rather, Humanism is under the illusion that it is using science when in fact it is using social convention. At some point the Humanist needs to look at the ability to have human potential, otherwise everything is justified. A moth can make a choice to fly towards a light, but a child may be days away from being able to make an equally simple choice, not to mention a person who is temporarily unconscious. And,obviously, infants can make associations before they are even born. http://pss.sagepub.com/content/14/3/220

Lyle,
In case my last paragraph above is not clear, my point is that the Humanist needs to consider potential to have the best argument. But by doing so they must extend what they consider to be murder prior to birth.

McBride - You are not a very intriguing fellow...You do not have any credentials for your reactionary opinions. Just a lot to say wordwise, but stale, predictable ideas.
Everything I said is absolutely true about my background, but if I disclosed more, ultra-rghtwing people attack liberals personally and unfairly. From what you have said in the past, you are so zealous and persistent, frankly you seem dangerous.

McBride - Of course the personhood amendment could pass, given the winner take all attitude of the Tea Party and a Romney win. Republicans like you just do not want the extremely rightwing and religious planks in their platform discussed. The Prohibition amendment passed, and that was mostly due to a minority of vocal zealots, and mostly those with strong religious beliefs. Of course, Prohibition was a disaster, and was repealed by another Amendment. The Tea Party would like to sweep its religious planks into law on the coattails of reduced government spending voters.

It is necessary to thoroughly discuss the Republican plank beyond the radical transmogrification of Medicare and the slicing of Social Security benefits for future generations. That includes Republican social engineering, which has tremendous economic costs for a recovering nation.

Dirk, feel free to discuss the personhood amendment, the knucklehead from Missouri, Paul Ryan, Ayn Rand, the "War on Women", ALEC, "Mittens" and anything else you wish to discuss repeatedly ad infinitum until it becomes so much noise. I could care less. When you do, it doesn't reflect on me - it reflects on you.

BTW, didn't you once state you owe your current life of idleness to a career at Walmart?

McBride - I doubt you can restrain yourself as I comment on the Republican platform.
Maybe I can draw you out of your shell by asking what punishment you envision for an abortion for the mother under the Republican scheme? Apparently it is first degree murder.What is to become of all the millions of otherwise unwanted babies when abortion is oulawed? Starvation for the poor babies, let the abandoned ones die, any help for the pregnant, captive brood mothers? Even with legal abortions today, the economic costs are incredible for unwanted children. Will you be doing a lot of charitable contributions, and possibly adopting?
Yes, I worked a Wal-Mart and made great money with hard work, and was in lots of meetings with Sam Walton. I am not idle today, I work in a legal profession. What is your background? Your stereotyping is myopic.

And didn't you also say you hold some WMT? And that you owe your comfortable living in part to that?

@Bob McBride -- That's just semantics and tactful speech. We don't really 'pass away'. We die or expire, but you'll never hear a funeral director using those terms.

Randy, i know it is. But in some cases it's used to structure the argument so as to imply that what's being disposed of during abortion is something less than a human life. Whereas when the pregnancy is wanted, it's an entirely different story.

We're talking about a serious decision. If we use language, or semantics if you prefer, to rationalize one of the courses in which such a decision may take us, I don't think that's healthy. For a health professional or employee of a counseling service to imply a difference that's not really there so as to make a decision to abort easier, would, to me at least, represent a form of malpractice.

@Bob McBride -- It all depends on your definition of 'human'. An embryo is potential human life, but it is not there yet and may never be. One of the comforts of an early miscarriage is that the lost embryo has not yet gained a conscious ability to feel pain or fear. It's a disappointment and the loss of what might have been, but it bears no resemblance to losing an infant or an older child.

To me that's still rationalizing the decision, Randy. The argument in that case seems to be that if you kill it soon enough it won't look much like what it would ultimately look like 6 or 9 months down the line - so it's not "human" by someone's definition. Nature, in fact, assures that it's human - and nothing else.

Gosh, Bob. Is it okay with you not to conceive them?

I'm not at all in favor of abortions myself, but sometimes they're the lesser of two evils. The person(s) who will ultimately be responsible for that new life, which is some cases can be pretty miserable, are the ones who need to make that decision.

It's okay to not conceive them and it's okay to abort them as far as I'm concerned. Just as long as we're not fooling ourselves into thinking what we're not creating or killing isn't human. We seem to go to extreme measures to make sure they're referred to in a certain fashion when either one of those two options is being considered.

@Randy,

Yet you are totally willing to use social engineering to make sure that those who are already born are not miserable. Therefore your objection falls.

Yes, Luke, but you guys aren't. Therefore your argument fails.

@Randy,

On the contrary, I am. Which is why your hollow argument fails again.

Really, Luke? You're in favor of Medicaid, universal healthcare, Pell grants and all that good stuff for the economically disadvantaged?

@Randy,

Yes, but probably not in the forms that you are in favor of. Mine are better. In fact, I'm the only one on Patch that has proposed what would be the largest expansion in education and childcare in the past 150 years. It would, by design, make itself somewhat obsolete in one generation, expand the workforce, and have a stimulative effect on the economy.

McBride - No, I do not hold Wal-Mart stock. I sold it all as I left. By your view, liberals can only work for the government, leftist non-profits, or be on the dole. Progressive thinkers work everywhere. You never cease to amaze me as to your myopic stereotyping. You seem to have not lived in the real world with any kind of diversity.

But you did profit from the sale of the stock, did you not?

Here's your problem, Dirk. You come on here posing as a "Progressive" while a significant portion of your wealth and livelihood came as a result of working for the company that's, cumulatively, more responsible for the exodus of jobs overseas than any other single US based company.

To this day, if you want Walmart to carry your product (or if you want to be considered to be an "approved" secondary vendor), you have to be willing to move some or all of your production and and distribution (or have production facilities there, if you're a secondary vendor) offshore. Your costs will be scrutinized and recommendations regarding which parts they want you to have produced offshore will be made. You will be given a price point you can't meet unless you do as they wish.

Walmart's reputation, domestically, as regards predatory business practices and labor issues is well known.

In addition, your labor has enriched the Waltons, who regularly support conservative causes and candidates.

So while you talk a good game, your history paints another picture entirely. So either you're just disingenuous in nature, attempting to make up for sins of the past or a plant arguing the Progressive side in a fashion designed to cause it ridicule.

You pick.

@Bob McBride -- First of all, Walmart was not quite what it is today while Sam Walton was still alive. I used to shop there. I stopped doing so when the changes began -- censoring of books and record albums they would sell, the way they treated some employees.

However, you'd be the first to criticize anyone who turned down work, and now you expect us to do so based on an employer's politics?

Randy,

Dirk's history speaks for itself. Sam Walton was every bit the aggressive, take out the competition, skirt the rules, keep the costs down, pay as little as you can business person as are those currently in control. He set the pace and, if Dirk's to be believed, he was right by Sam's side in the process of making it what it is today. He wasn't merely some schlump who couldn't find a job elsewhere at the time, particularly if he's a practicing lawyer now.

If he didn't want his past scrutinized and compared to what he currently claims as his political leaning, he shouldn't have brought it up.

McBride - You may remember the Made in America theme Wal-Mart had in the early 90's. When Sam died, Wal-Mart changed, and I left voluntarily later. I was not a lawyer there. On the other hand, you do not make a lick of sense when it comes to how a hard-working, honest liberal is supposed to make a living. Sam Walton was a great businessman, but his techniques were simple. Work, work, work, and be smart and thrifty. No dirty tricks, and 99% of his wealth was in company stock, not cashed in.
We were only allowed houses that equaled 150% of our annual income. The Walton family is not religious in the extreme sense. Helen Walton, Sam's wife, has made significant contributions to Planned Parenthood. Hillary was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart. Bill Clinton was a special guest at the special memorial for Sam at Wal-Mart HQ. Conservative does not equate to the Tea Party agenda for every or even most Republicans.
Frankly, McBride, you come across as a extremely narrow, prejudiced, and not that smart smart aleck.
What are you saying, progressive people should not be rubbing shoulders as we work with the likes of the Tea Party? Everyone should be able to work with everyone else in spite of politics in a regular work environment, your kind tries to divide people into groups they can hate and those they can worship.

That's a nice piece of folklore and I'm sure it would be "Sam-approved", Dirk but that leaves out a good portion of the story - the rest of which I addressed, above.

What I'm suggesting, Dirk, is that you were an active participant in developing what Walmart was back then (not your sanitized version,) what it became and what it is today.

The point is not how you made a living, Dirk. The point is not willingly accepting, or even acknowledging, your part in creating the very things you and other progressives rail about and attempt to lay at to feet of others on a daily basis. It's the inconsistent, arrogant and self-serving posture you take here when criticizing the very problems you took an active part in creating.

Everything goes back to the economy, including the situation we find ourselves in now regarding social issues because, at their root, they're economic issues. And you, Dirk, being as involved in one of the main driving forces in facilitating what you folks like to refer to as the "race to the bottom" as you claim to be, are at greater fault for where we find ourselves than are most you choose to criticize here.

And, lest we forget, most of the legislation that allowed for the export of jobs elsewhere (NAFTA and MFN status reinstated for China) happened under the Clinton Administration, which certainly has benefitted few companies to the degree it has Walmart. Never hurts to have the husband of someone who was on the board and also the former Governor of the state you call home in the WH, does it?

And now if we could only find evidence that Dirk had pinned someone down and cut their hair as a youth or strapped a pet on top of his car while on vacation, I could call it a day.

McBride - I do not understand where you come from, where you stand. You resort to demonizing and demeaning people when they make a good argument against your prejudices, so you are not religious in the true Christian sense. What does bringing up Wal-Mart have to do with abortion? You now seem anti-business, anti-free trade, anti-success, anti-wealthy, deeply jealous that a liberal can have more net worth than you. Liberals are not Communists, Socialists, etc., no matter what Rush tells you. They are generally nice, caring people. You seem absolutely at wit's end when a liberal does not fit neatly into your twisted preconceptions. The workplace is filled with people that can get the work done and done well, not brownnoses that just openly adhere to some absolute party line, at least not for long. That may explain why you do not seem to now have or have had a real job, maybe you are unemployed, on disability, retired, or a paid blogger, but not sure what message you would be paid to squawk about.

Dirk, you're the one constantly trying to fit people into little boxes here. And if you can't, you don't know where they're coming from or where they stand. You do just what I did to you all the time here. Someone said this, so that must be what they did, who they are, what they stand for, why they're this way, etc. The only one that's not required to fit into a particular cubby, apparently, is you.

I'll let you sort out the last comment I made just above yours here on your own if you care to. Shouldn't be all that difficult.

McBride - Bullying and pet cruelty are indicators of sociopathic behavior. Yes, I do put Romney in that box. Outwardly friendly and affably appealing, though prone to exaggeration and disingenuous, inwardly ruthless and uncaring.. Etch-a-wretch Romney:. "Got to be pretty liberal to be governor of Massachusetts, I can do that, Got to be a die-hard reactionary to win the Repub. nomination for President, I can do that."

What potential indicators of sociopathic tendencies do you suppose we could find if we picked apart your life, Dirk? If you're tempted to suggest none, don't be too sure. Everyone's got a little dirt under their nails and a few skeletons in the closet.

McBride - What's your story? On what anvil were your philosophies forged? I was a key associate in the largest corporation in the world. You seem to be ashamed of your past. Was it some milquetoast dolittle job? Maybe government service? I have been informed you are not teenager as your writing often suggests, but a very mature adult age-wise. I know you are really into the computer gamer culture. What experiences have you had out there is the real world? We know a lot about people like Lyle Ruble, and I have disclosed quite a bit about myself.

Why all the intrigue?

What intrigue is that, Dirk?

Your whole game here is taking little, minute bits of information and attempting to create characters that fit your view of the world. I just gave some of that back to you and you don't like it. Deal with it.

I don't even know if half of what you said about yourself is true. Frankly, from what I've seen of you here I find it hard to believe you got much beyond the greeter stage at Walmart, but if that's your story I'm happy to turn it around on you.

angie53213 - Personhood does indeed extend to people already born. Keep that in mind as voting becomes more restricted and difficult for non-drivers. And the personhood of everyone alive today, including the right to choose what happens to own's own body.

If most of those against abortion would have as much concern for the person out of the womb and the fetus in the womb, this thing would be over in one minute.

Let's look at the historical president. The abolitionists turned into Republicans, who after they beat the South sold out the former slaves. History repeats itself.

The abolishisionists won DIrk, it was called the civil war.

Right. Many abolitionists were racists. Freeing the slaves was one thing, having them move up north quite another. Consider the colony of Liberia, for example.

Joe, as with all military actions, the Civil War was based on profit/loss. The Southern states were outnumbered in Washington. Bills were being passed that affected the bottom line in the South. Once secession had occurred, freeing slaves, even as a gesture, would cause further chaos with the economy of the South. In the end, the South lost and in many ways has never recovered. Some of the poorest states in the U.S. are southern, former slave states. Had Lincoln lived through his second term, things might have been quite different but alas.

Among the American people, the majority considered slavery a social outrage, unbefitting a progressive nation. It's just important to remember that as now, the flames of human emotions were fanned to fever pitch by special interests with much to gain. The post-Civil War years were among the most corrupt in U.S. history; perhaps we are doomed in this country to pay the price for social advancement with quality of life. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest continues to widen.

Actually Bren, many of the leaders of the American Colonization Society that sent free blacks to Liberia were either slave holder or their sympathizers. Abolitionists were not against the repatriation of former slaves, but were more concerned with securing their freedom. Even Lincoln was amazed that when given the choice, free Black leaders preferred to stay in the United States. To state that "Many abolitionists were racists" is a bit of a stretch. The reality was that back in the mid-19th century, many people were bigoted towards other heritages. For example, even into the 20th century, the Irish were considered the dregs of society, in some cases even lower than Blacks. I wouldn't be surprised if those "racist abolitionists" didn't like anyone of a different heritage.

Perhaps our "Wealth Gap" would not be so great if the Left would start embracing job growth. Every dollar collected in taxes is one less dollar that could go towards paying someone a decent wage for a job. Instead, the Left would rather take that money from someone wealthy and give it to someone to sit at home and watch reruns of "The Closer".

The Left has now created a different slave class. Not one bound to forced labor, but bound to voting. The Left owns the non-working class, but fortunately they can break away, find a good job, and live the American Dream they were meant to!

I don't know if you would call it evolving or bending with the wind. When Byrd started in the KKK, it was a popular organization to many of the movers and shakers in his area. When this country moved forward and the Civil Rights Movement started under Eisenhower, Byrd modified his "opinions" to coincide with the popular dogma of the day.

Actually Randy and Lyle, if a Personhood Amendment passed 3/4 of the state legislatures, it would be on an equal footing with the First Amendment. However, it would need to address those portions in conflict within the Constitution and Amendments or we could have a Constitutional crisis.

Really, Alfred old boy?

Why do you believe that you're the crown of creation? Because the pastor told you so? It takes a brain to question.

@Alfred....Your reasoning is a clear tautology....a human evaluating a human being as the pinnacle of creation. Not that it matters, but you are using ad hominem attacks to further your argument, which just isn't done if you wish to remain credible.

Using a religious principle, in this case human agency beginning at conception, is neither scientific nor justifiable in creating a secular morality, which the U.S. is secular by design of the founders.

Are we judging a being's worth on the basis of intelligence, then? There are quite a few people who will never be able to make medical discoveries.

What my advanced years have taught me is that some cats have more of a sense of kindness and decency than some human beings.

So you're an expert on animal intelligence, now are you? I thought you were a businessman, Alfred. Now I see you are a man of many parts. Do tell me more.

Cats don't choose between good and evil because they are subjective human behavioral/spiritual designations. I will agree with Randy about kindness. And add loyalty. The animal does not judge. Trust is established on a pattern of continuing behavior. It may be instinctual self-preservation, but there have been times in my life when the cat's companionship has been one of the most trustworthy.

All cats are evil. Dogs are good.

@Luke -- You base that statement on what, exactly (assuming it's not spoken facetiously)?

@Randy,

No, I was not serious. I wanted to leave it up for Bren to see. I thought I had deleted it.

How did we tangent onto companion animals anyway? ; )

We always get on tangents. We should call this tangents.com.

Oh wait, there already is a tangents.com. And there are pictures of cats on the site. Therefore, it is evil.

But seriously, I like cats. Fried.

@Me in the Falls...Call on your gender as a source of authority is not a very effective argument. There is no doubt that a fetus is biologically alive, but that doesn't prove that it is deserving of human agency. Beyond that, men have no business in deciding whether or not a pregnancy should be terminated. Men can cooperate by supporting a woman's choice. Murder is only associated with taking the life of a human exercising full agency.

Lyle,
That is not an argument you are making; it is an assertion. Not only is it presently legally inaccurate to say that ONLY someone capable of exercising full agency can be murdered, but it also ignores the fact that we are discussing what the law SHOULD be. Also, an individuals personal experience, ineffable or otherwise, is sufficient basis for personal judgment and worthy of sharing to anyone interested, whether or not you find it credible.

Bren,

Apparently you can't grasp the irony of being from the party of absurd protests that is lecturing the " far-right fringe." After killing your chances at the last election partially because of your outrageous protests, you continue to stalk the capital. On a daily basis there is a man on a Segway that goes around swearing at nearly everyone who is wearing a dress or a suit, a man in a grorilla suit and a woman walking around with a knitted uterus on a stick.

And need I mention the absurd protest tactics that the left has utilized on the national level?

As for the poor, I can't think of any organized party that has hurt them more by setting them up for institutionalized failure, as I have argued elsewhere.

This is for your entertainment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElJFYwRtrH4

Luke, the group of environmental performance artists in your video aren't nearly as ludicrous as say, whatever comes out of the mouth of Todd "Magical Secretion" Akin, or time- and money-wasting antics such as 31 votes on ACA in Congress. Unlike the performance artists, the people I mention are elected officials. I frankly could care less about citizen protests; it is the behavior of the people elected to serve our country that concerns me more. How is a uterus on a stick more or less ridiculous than the Magical Secretion?

This isn't the traditional GOP acting this way, it's the far-right fringe. As for irony, please present some examples of medieval science promoted by the left, or 31 or more votes against a piece of legislation that has universal bipartisan support once the nasty right-wing name of Obamacare is removed? Thanks,

OC Resident - I've noted that paradox as well. I also feel that it took hundreds of years for this country to mess up something as obvious as the fact that black people are also persons, not property or a fraction of a person. This one isn't as obvious for some, so it may take a little longer.

@oak creek resident -- It is not true that someone who kills a pregnant woman is always guilty of two murders. First of all, it depends on state law. Some states give legal protection to viable fetuses in the third trimester while others don't. Prior to that, the crime is grievous bodily injury, either accidental or deliberate.

I think you can understand this by considering the fetus a part of the woman's body until the point of viability. As such, whether or not it's a person, or is intended to become a person, is dependent on the mother's wishes. It has no right to life that supersedes the mother's right to choose; consequently, the mother has to choose life before the rights of the embryo or fetus can be considered.

If the mother is intending to give birth, then the fetus has a level of personhood that an embryo in an unintended pregnancy does not.

Because you control the definition of 'agency', just as the anti abolishionists tried to control the vernacular. You are a vapid shallow man.

@sara-- Do you seriously equate a fertilized zygote with four cells and no cognition to a fully-grown adult with the ability to feel both physical and emotional pain? One of the most wrenching scenes in Roots was that of Kunta Kinte watching his only child being sold away from him.. That summed up the evil of slavery right there. No matter how kind the master and how good the treatment, a slave experiences the loss of control over self and personal destiny.

Theoretically, a scraping of cells from my cheek have the potential to grow into human beings with the right medical support. Does that make me a murderer for brushing my teeth? Is it only the possession of homo sapiens DNA that gives us this absolute right to life no matter how rudimentary our development is? We certainly kill animals for convenience and necessity that have far more of a consciousness and appreciation of their existence. Why is that permissible?

"Theoretically, a scraping of cells from my cheek have the potential to grow into human beings with the right medical support. " That is as crazy as an Akin statement, don't know what to do with level of ignorance and stupidity except ignore it.

@sara....Ad hominem attacks does not bode well for your position. What Randy shared with you about cell scrapings is in truth a fact. If you would leave the emotive element behind and do some basic research, you'd find he is correct theoretically. In the case of Dolly the sheep, they did not use her host's gamete since it only contains half of the genetic code. Please research before calling something crazy.

Mr Ruble, please show me where in scientific data and history a human being was produced by the scraping of the insides of a persons mouth. And you wonder why I have to mock and ridicule people like you with very limited education.

@sara -- Human cloning has not been attempted -- that we know of -- because it would be illegal and unethical. However, Dolly the sheep was produced by exactly the same methods and carried by a host mother into which the sheep zygote was implanted.

Google cloning to see how the process works. It is feasible for human beings as well as sheep.

@Lyle -- From what I read at the time, Dolly was produced by taking a sheep ovum, removing the genetic material from that ovum, extracting the full-copy DNA from Dolly's copy-parent, and implanting the resulting zygote into a host mother. The process should work just as well from a human being.

However, it would be unethical, since Dolly aged and died prematurely, and we would not want to inflict that fate on a human child. It would not surprise me, though, if somewhere in the world, some rich individual has attempted this and kept it secret.

@sara....You question people's education as well as their intent toward supporting a woman who has decided to carry a baby to term. In review, I don't see the evidence to support your position. If anything, those who reject the Personhood Amendment are not advocating abortion but advocating a woman's choice over control of her body and that men are fully responsible to support and care for their offspring. When you speak of education, I think you'll find many of us are college educated and some of us have advanced degrees. My own education background in the social sciences and philosophy have helped shaped my ability to think critically and to examine the questions posed.

Warriors Mom, of the women I know who have had abortions (legal or self-induced) only one did it as a form of birth control. Although living independently she had mental health and alcohol dependency issues. Impregnated while high/drunk/passed out, she had no idea who the father even was. I tried to convince her to keep the baby to no avail. I believe she was terrified that the baby would be malformed because of her drug and alcohol history and because she didn't think an adoption agency would take such a baby.

I would rather devote our energy to addressing the social and mental health issues that lead to abortions as the method of permanently diminishing/eliminating economic and socially-motivated abortions.

I know women who had them too, including one who desperately wanted a baby of her own but chronically miscarried to the point where the next one would kill her. All she needed was to have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to prove she required it, or to have to walk past screaming lines of protesters guilting her.

It's no one's business but a woman's and her doctor's.

Of the four that I can recall all were birth control related.

I don't know if there are any stats out there breaking down the number each performed for rape, medical reasons or birth control over a period time (possibly not due to HIPA laws), but it would be interesting to have something other than anecdotal reports to comment on.

@Warriors Mom...I agree, the woman must remain in control of her body. It really should be a non issue for us men. It's her decision and her's alone. On the other hand, if a woman decides to carry the fetus, the male has an important role in helping her to remain healthy as well as the fetus. After birth he shares in the responsibility of raising the child to majority. This duty goes beyond the relationship between the biological mother and the biological father.

In short, prior to birth, the host has or should have all of the control since it's her body.

@sara -- Being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion. Men should not have any power in this decision, since men are not the ones risking their life and health for nine months. The best men can do is be on good terms with the women in their lives, in which case, abortion won't be an issue, except in some extreme circumstances.

I completely support the right of a woman to carry a rapist's child to term and then keep if if that is truly her choice. But it has to be a choice that is strictly her own.

You don't seem to realize that the Personhood Amendment would outlaw hormonal contraception, which mostly works by preventing ovulation but in rare instances will prevent implantation of a fertilized zygote. You will take away a woman's ability to protect herself against impregnation even during an act of rape.

Or to proactively choose to hold off on beginning a family until appropriate economic circumstances are achieved. Almost every married couple I know used hormonal birth control for at least 3 years after marriage.

@Bren -- Many married couples use hormonal birth control after their desired number of children have been born, because no one likes to remove the option of having more without a great deal of consideration.

"sara," that's a really obnoxious thing to say. I want to make sure that the right to choose is protected, and available to my daughter, who my wife and I wanted and who means the world to us. It's going to be hard enough for her to make it in this economy; I want to make sure that she can control when she starts her family, if that's what she wants.

Unlike you, I trust women to make the right decisions for themselves.

@skinnyDude....Your argument about the equality of a crazed murderer with a woman deciding to terminate her pregnancy is just plain wrong and clearly the launching of a 'red herring'. Try again with another argument, this one just won't fly except with the less intelligent.

@ Lyle
You proved my point. You cherry pick your arguments and call them valid . Almost everyone with intellect finds your views extreme. But you dont see the forest from the trees. Thanks for proving my point. By the way.....those are Obama's views so they are relevant .

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/sba-list-to-launch-missouri-ads-against-obama-on-abortion-133435.html
ITS A ISSUE IN MISSOURI !

"Randy = extremely dishonest, or just a dim bulb. Guessing the latter." Well he thinks he can give birth to a human being simply by having the inside of his mouth scraped, so I think you are right.

@oak creek resident -- see what I said to you above. The homicide laws see definite shades of grey in this area.

Please tell me an instance where a person has been charged and convicted of murder for attacking a pregnant woman and causing the death of her six-week embryo. I would be very interested to see that, especially before you call me dishonest or dim.

@sara -- The little Randy-clone would require a surrogate host mother just the way Dolly the sheep did. That was included in the 'medical support'.

All over this planet, paid and volunteer surrogates are gestating fetuses that have no genetic relationship to them at all. Someday, someone will develop an artificial womb to bypass even that necessity. What I would like to see is the ability to transplant an embryo or fetus, and how many anti-choice people would step up to give life to all those unwanted pregnancies.

Or adopt a special-needs foster-child so you can see first-hand the damage done by mothers who really never wanted their children. You might get a clue how hostile this world can be.

@Taoist
If you don't believe in guns, don't get one. But don't try to make yourself righteous by trying to control what other people want.

If you don't believe in right to work legislation, then get a union job. But don't try to make yourself feel righteous by trying to control what other people do.

If you don't believe in fossil fuels, then don't buy any. But don't try to make yourself feel righteous by trying to control what other people do.

If you don't believe in low taxes, then pay more. But don't try to make yourself feel righteous by trying to control what other people do.

If you don't believe in abstinence education, then talk to your kids. But don't try to make yourself feel righteous by trying to control what other people do.

You libs sit and cry about conservatives wanting to get into peoples bedrooms; however, it is the progressive liberal advancement of government regulation that controls my bedroom carpet to my bedroom ceiling paint and everything in between. Yet, on this issue, there should be no government intervention. In fact, the government should be covering the cost of these abortions. As I have said before, you liberal men just want all responsibility of sex taken out of your hands and place the burden completely on the women.

@J.B. Schmidt -- You're in favor of lead in the paint? Seriously? That explains a lot.

JB,

If I thought you sincerely believed that you were making good arguments, I'd take the time to refute them. I give you a little more credit than that - even you aren't so deluded as to give the decision to abort a pregnancy and the decision to buy a pistol equal moral standing.

I would characterize my position as: behaviors with external negative consequences are the proper purview of the government. Behaviors without external negative consequences are not.

That's one of those straightforward ethical concepts that the Texas GOP wants to render your kids too stupid to understand.

I've heard of Laci Petersen. Her son was a little over five weeks short of his due date, which he was viable and deserved legal protection against a deliberate homicide.

I had not heard of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, since I was not as political back then. I note it has specific exceptions for cases of abortion, and your attempt to use it as justification for a Personhood Amendment confirms the opinion of the critics of the bill that it was, in part, a back-door attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Has anyone been tried and convicted under this statute for the death of a 'child in utero' at the first trimester stage?

Actually, I take that back. Mississippi is only the third least-educated state, after West Virginia (#50) and Arkansas (#49). Still pretty ignorant, though.

@sara -- Your reading comprehension is nil. Whoever said any of the men on this thread were willing to abandon pregnant women?

If the facts don't suit, just make some stuff up, eh sara? ; )

Except that the Declaration of Independence isn't the law of the land. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the law of the land.

@sanchez....Time for you to go back to school. Randy is right that the constitution is the law of the land. Time for you to go back into your GOP/TEA Party cocoon.

"sanchez" -

Wrong again; the preamble to the Constitution is something else entirely.

Seriously, if you're going to be beating people over the head with the Constitution, you should probably read it. Why don't you care about US history? Why do you hate our freedoms?

Even before Mr. Sperm meets Ms. Egg? Because that's part of some folks' religious doctrine according to an old 'Living For Holiness' book I came across and read with dismay. They'd like to see condoms done away with too.

No, I don't think that's right. But it is not right to kill either. The child is a good thing. Many a couple are willing to adopt as well, if the mother can't care for the child. In fact, the waiting lists are very long. And you can wait years in some cases. The mother can also be cared for especially if they don't have the money for the health care costs. There are many agencies that have a lot of resources for mothers who have this unfortunate situation and are also offered psychological counseling for free.

Ed,

Well, as in most ethical dilemmas, there's no way to say unequivocally that one thing is right or one is wrong. That's why all of the sloganeering on this issue never gets anywhere.

So, some of us choose to leave the choice up to the mother, with certain restrictions. I think that banning abortion after a certain point, say fetal viability, is reasonable. That way, there is an alternative. However, if the state is going to prohibit abortion after the point of viability, then it should pay all the medical costs of inducement or Caesarean, including NICA costs.

Before viability, though, it's a personal and potentially emotionally fraught decision that, ultimately, is the mother's to make.

That's why I took issue with your "Babies should be protected at all stages of life" statement. This is a situation where common sense is too simplistic for the serious issues of personal bodily autonomy and dependent ethical obligations involved.

Makes you wonder how many abortions Mr Crocodile has paid for, not paid for, or simply ran from the situation when he impregnated an unwitting female. Liberal scum bags.

"H.E. Pennypacker"

Thanks for continuing to be a brilliant example of the kind of thick-headed, knee-jerk, cranky, and mentally overtaxed approach to this issue that so afflicts the GOP.

Maybe someday I'll be in a car accident, and have to have two thirds of my brain removed, and I'll start to realize that you're a smart and clever guy.

@ H.E. of the many aliases -

"how many ding bats did you impregnate?"
"Very odd, for such an effeminate male to be concerned with a female issue."
"You must be part of the transgendered arena perhaps."

So, let me sum up your stated views:
- women are "ding bats"
- men aren't supposed to care about women's issues
- any man who does must be biologically female.

You know what I don't understand? Why do women think that conservatives and the GOP are anti-woman? I mean, I would think that any women would be desperate to join you in your full-throated dismissal of the importance of reproductive freedoms.

You are sad. Take a shower, comb the bugs out of your hair, get some sun and start thinking about what you're really angry about - the fact that all of the food that you stuff in your mouth has produced nothing but a cranky, friendless waste of a person.

Yes, but the problem is that you have competing goods. Human life should be preserved. Human freedom should be preserved. Independent people have more rights than dependent people. Religions freedom should be preserved. Freedom from the imposition of another's religious notions on your own life should be preserved. These are all important and good things, and they're at odds in this case.

My position holds that preservation of an independent person's bodily freedom, and freedom from imposition of another's religion, takes precedence in this case over the right of an unconscious, dependent human organism to remain alive inside that independent person's body, against her wishes.

As for helpless and innocent - well, you're describing a rape victim right there. Your notion that a zygote is a human life, with the same right to life as any other life, is incompatible with your earlier claim that you would not charge a rape victim who aborted her zygote via a morning after pill with murder.

Finally, I'm fine with tax dollars not being used to pay directly for abortions. As long as my loved ones have access to abortion services, I'll pick up the check if they ever need to use them.

@Taoist:
"As for helpless and innocent - well, you're describing a rape victim right there. Your notion that a zygote is a human life, with the same right to life as any other life, is incompatible with your earlier claim that you would not charge a rape victim who aborted her zygote via a morning after pill with murder."

It is not incompatible with my earlier claim that I "would not charge a rape victim who aborted her zygote via a morning after pill with murder." It means I don't agree with charging the person, although I believe it is killing a human being.

A rape victim is innocent and should be protected. Unfortunately, she was not due to a crimimal act. There is no need to further victimize her or another with the killing of a newly formed life. She is best protected with a real health solution of health care for her pregnancy and the preservation of her offspring.

I agree with you on the preservation of bodily freedom. The scientific basis of the newly formed human being being a human with rights is obvious.

I am not addressing nor do I support the removal of contraception from public access to be written into the law. It is a separate issue.

@Ed Hamilton....No one is asking you to pay for a abortion. This is a philosophical and ethical issue. We are only defending a woman's right to choose. To place a woman in a position to carry after an incident of sexual assault is immoral and cruel. You and I as men will never have to directly deal with this choice. I have donated to various organizations that preserve a woman's choice and I am proud to say that I have provided funds, out of my own pocket, to fund pregnancy terminations for woman who have exercised their choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. I do not, nor have I ever, granted human agency to a zygote or fetus who is not at the point of viability. Just as in physics, potential energy is just potential; while human potential remains potential unless the being has reached viability.

@Lyle -- Pat of the issue here is the Hyde Amendment which prohibits federal funds from being used to fund abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or maternal health, hence the attempt to redefine 'legitimate' rape.

The other problem with the Hyde Amendment is that 'federal funds' seem to include private health plans purchased with a MSA, because of the inherent tax break. This becomes even more problematic with the low-income subsidies for health insurance under the ACA.

Assuming they could classify hormonal birth control and the IUD as abortifacients using the Personhood Amendment, there goes contraception too. It's a back-door way of sending us back to the 1950s.

It is a blessing that Mr. Ryan has never experienced this sick, violent crime. I am shocked that he is sanguine about the horrific experiences of others, in describing it as a method of conception. A shocking lack of empathy. I am grateful that none of the pro-life posters here have ever expressed a similar banality concerning rape.

Bren, your comments irrelevant. Go back to your bumper sticker slogans.

@Ed Hamilton -- Unfortunately, while hormonal contraception works primarily by suppressing ovulation, in a few rare instances it prevents implantation of the zygote should a fertilization occur. The 'morning after' pill, which is really a high dose birth control pill, works the same way. The hope is to prevent ovulation, but it prevents implantation if a fertilization has already happened.

There are those behind the Personhood Amendment who are quite frank about ending hormonal contraception and the IUD as well. I wouldn't call them backwoods hicks, but their ideology is often religiously motivated.

Contraception is widely available now, but it is not always cheap.

Hormonal contraception is so popular because it is 99% effective compared with other forms.

We have politicians without medical degrees making assertions without understanding how hormonal contraceptives work (Romney) or how the female body functions (Akin). People who don't understand the topic shouldn't be discussing it or trying to legislate it. I wouldn't call these people "backwards uneducated hicks" but arrogant and ignorant. Arrogant in wanting their way; ignorant in ignoring the true facts of the matter.

If human life begins the moment sperm meets egg, then any agency that prevents the implantation of that fertilized egg would be killing that 'person'. IUDs work by preventing implantation. In rare cases where birth control pills fail to prevent ovulation, they will prevent implantation. The Plan B medication given to rape victims also works this way.

At seven months gestation and obviously viable, Melissa Ohden really should blame the inadequate laws of the state where she was born, which could certainly have prohibited elective abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy.

Please show me the fully functional survivor of an abortion at the embryonic stage or earlier before calling any of us bloodthirsty.

That's a slightly different issue, sir. That is, 'elective' abortion of a viable fetus with no grave abnormalities, as opposed to the legal requirement that all fetuses surviving an abortion be resuscitated. Don't you think this is best left up to the presiding physician? Obviously, someone felt Ms. Ohden was worthy of resuscitation, because she is with us. But if a fetus is being aborted because of a lethal defect, is it even ethical to attempt to prolong suffering?

Heil Hitler!! okay Randy, glad to see where you are coming from.

Are you a medical doctor, Dr. Saul? I happen to know of at least two genetic conditions where the infant, if born, dies a slow, agonizing death over the course of months. Is it kind to insist they do that?

Congratulations in invoking Godwin's law.