To change public opinion regarding abortion in the past few decades, conservative religionists have not been successful. A politician has an obligation to represent the interests of his constituency, which is exactly what Mr. Biden is doing. Since the law states that women have the right to decide how to handle their pregnancies without being hassled about it, it's about time for the Bishop and other strident protesters to cease and desist with the browbeating. Furthermore, the activists and politicians who've disengenuously worked to regulate abortion clinics out of practice in several states should be held accountable and prosecuted for illegal activity.

Do you believe a late term abortion at any time prior to passing through the vaginal canal should be legal? Do you believe that an abortion performed one hour before delivery should be legal in the United States?

Bet you she does. Also bet you she won't have the guts to answer.

Or so I've been told, but the elephant in this room is the very claim that souls exist.

Nobody who is religious dares to bring up that four letter word in public. Have you noticed? It has no currency in industrialized nations anymore. As well it shouldn't.

Science is the coveted commodity and Big Faith knows this.

Unfortunately for them, people of faith have painted themselves into a corner. Their sperm/ova conception arguments are not scientifically sound and words like person and personhood are only societal constructs, not absolutes.

It's ironic, really, how reductionist-minded (usually a pejorative word used against freethinkers) the religious have become when it comes to discussing just what human life supposedly is.

This is a good letter with excellent questions. It rightfully acknowledges the inclusion of the woman in the pregnancy equation. A woman, I might add, who is without a doubt a person, with acknowledged and protected rights. It's those rights, those known rights, of the woman, who is a person, which must take priority over scientific uncertainty if any sense of morality is to be upheld.

Mike

A woman is 8 months pregnant when, for whatever reason, she decides to have an abortion. Obviously she won't find any medical person willing to do that, so she decides to do it herself with a coat hangar.

It's a repulsive act, and one that's hard to conceive of, but has she violated any federal or Alaskan law?

A woman's rights is up to the woman,and or man, to make the decision as to how or when birth control is needed. The church has NO right to impose their beliefs on the country as a whole. Is the Bishop that there are many Catholics that practice birth control?

The answer is no she has not.

1. You have to include the VP in the “life begins at conception” statement. This is important because his private convictions then are inconsistent with his public statements. But he always gets a pass because that's just Silly Joey.

2. Arguments about rape, incest, and even unwanted pregnancies take a backseat to the primary question: When does life begin? Come to terms with that one, and then addressing the “what ifs” comes into play.

3. It is inconsistent in method to defer to ignorance, saying Who knows? After all, American judicial system holds that – what is it? – a hundred guilty men should go free rather than convict an innocent. Maybe it was a thousand guilty? Anyway, that notion gets checked at the door when it comes to the unborn because it is convenient to say, “who knows when life begins?” No reason to err on the side of prudence there. So what if we’re wrong, or feel icky at the thought of a heartbeat squashed? Terminate it anyway. Does that about sum up the decision process?

The question that goes hand-in-hand with 'when does life begin' is 'what is life worth'?

If all human life has equal value, regardless of its situation, then there are some glaring inconsistencies in our healthcare and military policies. And no doubt elsewhere if we begin to look.

When talking about abortion, "personhood," when a fetus becomes a "human" the debate has been going on for decades, and probably will go on for generations more.
Twenty-five or thirty years ago, some evangelical Christian preachers and teachers said the "life begins at birth." Then they switched to what many say today, "human life begins" the second the human egg and sperm unite. Its true, that if a new human comes into existence, the start is at the union of the gametes - the egg and sperm.
I don't agree with either of the two positions that a zygote (embryo) becomes a full human person at the instant of the union of gametes, or that human life only begins at birth. I think the embryo becomes a human person somewhere in between - but when that takes place, I cannot determine. I leave that up to biologists, medical experts, philosophers and perhaps theologians to debate. Maybe they can come up with an acceptable compromise or agreement.
Meanwhile, if a woman becomes pregnant against her will, is raped or there is some sexual crime, in the early stages of pregnancy she, her husband if she married, her family, her doctor must make a decision. It remains a complex issue and a major decision in life.

I certainly don't think one theology, one religious belief or one assumption has the right to try and force their opinion on others who may have different beliefs.
That's my reasoning and opinion.

So, how is it "ethical" to exchange the life of the, say, 24-year old mother, for the potential, maybe viable fetus (which, by the way, can't grow without the mother) which might not make it to gestation?

If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, shall we just allow the fetus to grow until it kills her? This is what Ryan is advocating.

discussion is that the religious right don't want to have a medical, scientific discussion about when life begins.

They simply want to force their beliefs on people who don't believe them.

i would appreciate an explanation from Ms. Metcalf on the topic of the baby's rights. At what point does the baby have rights?

There's a lot of talk about the mother's right to choose to keep or abort her child, but where is the line drawn? If we were to consider viability, shouldn't we pick the earliest stage where a baby would be viable outside the womb, and then set it back a week or so just to be safe?

Why do democrats consistently vote against bans on partial-birth abortion? Who in their right mind would consider that humane procedure in any way, shape, or form? And yet the pro-abortion crowd defends it like it is a basic human right.

Another interesting parallel for this topic is a criminal with a death sentence. Abortion-rights activists are typically vehemently opposed to the death penalty, mainly because an innocent person could mistakenly be convicted. What about the innocent babies who are physically torn from their mother's womb? What if Albert Einstein or Mother Theresa had been a victim of their mother's "rights"?

The pro-life politicians are not trying to infringe on a woman's rights, they are defending the innocent. Isn't that a worthy cause? Before you send in your money to SEACC to protect some wetland creatures, think about defending an unborn child - donate to pregnancy counseling centers - help a young, scared, pregnant girl make the right choice. Save a human life.

believe it or not, I do not issue papal bulls. I am saying that to proceed into your "what-if" domain, first you have to come to terms with what you are dealing with. Makes big difference -- matter of life & death -- if your ethics dictate that that thing gestating inside you is a baby.

If not a baby, why not? Because the govt tells you it's not? Because you never felt him kick, or listen to her heartbeat? Or because it is easier not to think of it that way.

Maybe because of GMO's or some other genetic monkey business. Who knows?

But it's 100% fatal without intervention. The only effective intervention is to connect the patient up to a healthy person so the healthy person's organs can sustain the sick person for the next 6 months. The catch - there has to be a perfect match between the two people, and it's a 1 in billion chance of a match.

But life is sacred, so the government passes a law that if you are found to be a perfect match, you must accept having this stranger connected to you for the next 6 months, 24/7. And no, you will not be compensated for your trouble.

How does this differ from rape or incest?