The South Dakota House of Representatives has passed a statewide ban on abortion. There is an exception for the health of the mother. There is no exception for rape or incest; a proposed amendment to that effect was shot down.
Some words from its sponsor, Rep. Roger W. Hunt:
“Whether it’s because of our legislation or some other [state's] legislation, the goal is to prohibit the killing and the termination of life of all of those unborn children,” Hunt told BP.
The bill passed by a vote of 47-22 and now goes to the state Senate, where a vote is expected to be tight. Ten of the Senate’s 35 members are sponsors. It is not known whether Gov. Mike Rounds, a pro-life Republican, would sign it.
But they are very hopeful:
South Dakota’s legislature passed similar legislation in 2004, only to see Rounds issue a “style-and-form” veto, sending it back to the legislature for minor changes. Rounds said in ’04 that he agreed with the bill’s intent, but was fearful that its wording would lead a court to strike down not only the bill but also the state’s other restrictions on abortion. The House ageed to Rounds’ changes, but the Senate defeated the reworded bill, 18-17, when a senator who previously had supported it switched and voted against it.
But Hunt told BP he believes he has the votes in the Senate to pass the bill and is confident Rounds will sign it. Since that 2004 vote, an election has taken place.
The SD Senate sponsor is actually a pro-life Democrat, Senator Julie Bartling:
“I think South Dakota has always been what I call a pro-life state, and I think it’s ready to step up and be in the forefront and make some of these first moves,” Bartling told Baptist Press. “I would say the majority of South Dakotans would favor a ban on abortions.”
The bill would make it a felony for anyone to perform an abortion. The mother would not be charged with a crime. The language of the bill –- named the Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act — says that “life begins at the time of conception” and that scientific advances since 1973 have proven that the unborn child is indeed life. The bill says the goal is to “fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother’s fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child.” The bill is based on the findings of a task force that studied abortion.
Would we need a ban on abortion if that relationship were as “natural” and “intrinsic” as described here? And is anyone in the House really under the impression that a woman’s right to not have an abortion is under assault?
The purpose of this bill is not in fact to ban abortion in South Dakota–that part is so much gravy. The purpose is to take the legal challenge that will most certainly follow to the Supreme Court, where it is hoped that Roe will finally be overturned so that South Dakota legislature and every other state legislature may ban abortion to their hearts’ content:
Of the Supreme Court’s nine members, five are on record as supporting abortion rights. But one of those five, Justice Anthony Kennedy, voted with the minority in 2000 to uphold Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion. It is not known how new Chief Justice John Roberts and new Justice Samuel Alito would vote on a Roe challenge. But Hunt hopes Roberts and Alito will help shape the court. In addition, Hunt notes that Justice John Paul Stevens, who supports Roe, will turn 86 in April and could retire. A challenge to Roe, Hunt said, could take three years to make it to the high court.
“I believe Roberts and Alito will bring some new philosophy to the court, new arguments,” Hunt said. “Coupled with those new arguments are going to be the technological and medical advances that we have seen. We [also] know so much more about post-abortion problems [compared to what was known in 1973].”
This stunning discovery, for example:
Speaking during floor debate, Hunt noted that the unborn child’s DNA is different from the mother’s.
“It is not just some tissue in the mother,” he said.
Pro-lifers have taken advantage of ultrasound technology to make great advances in recent years. Particularly helpful has been the 4-D ultrasound, which allows a mother to see her baby moving in the womb. The tiniest features — such as the sucking of the thumb — can be seen.
Whereas before ultrasound, women had no idea what was in there.
There are soooo many things wrong with their reasoning but I’m sure you already knew that.
Take, for instance, their definition of conception. What scientific advances have been made, exactly, that we can definitely label, without further doubt, that life starts at this point and time?
Then how’s about Hunt’s assertion that the DNA the fetus carries is not that of the mothers? How can he know this for sure? And how much sense does that not make? Because this brings up the issue of surregacy (and the fact that I can’t spell it) and in vitro fertilization, of which many Fundi’s deem “unnatural” to begin with.
And for a party that so abhorrently decried “activist judges” when it was about a woman who didn’t want to be fed through a tube anymore, they sure do use it when it suits them, eh? (i.e. “packing the court.”)
I think you’ve misunderstood him, although that’s perfectly understandable given how stupid this assertion is in a totally different direction. I don’t think he’s saying that fetuses have completely different DNA. We know for a fact that that isn’t so, since the mother is, y’know, the mother. My read on this is that he’s articulating biology 101–offspring inherit genetic material from both parents, and a fetus will therefore have some DNA not from the mother–as though it’s some new scientific advance that should startle us out of our reckless abortion-having culture.
I had thought about that, yet his assertion is still assinine. At the same time it’s not just the woman’s DNA yet at the same time it is. Her body is the one making the entire fetus into the baby that eventually pops out, not the man’s. A woman is heavily invested in making that precious life they want to protect so badly.
I’m tellin’ you, we need to hurry up and figure out how to make men pregnant so they will then, hopefully, understand what we women keep throwing back at them.
This seems like a pretty silly move on South Dakota’s part. The legislature clearly knows that the proposed law, should it pass, would be unconstitutional under current Supreme Court abortion precedents. The goal then is not to pass the law for its own sake, but to try to use it as a catalyst to overturn Roe. Leaving aside whether this is the sort of business state legislatures should get into, South Dakota also knows (or should know) that is destined to fail, since even if the case were to reach the Supremes, the Court still maintains a pro-Roe majority.
And if she is simultaneously carrying a cancer, that cancer’s DNA is also different from hers. Perhaps we should make chemotherapy illegal. Oh, wait, we can’t do that: MEN might be endangered by such a move.
but if we are able to finally do Juniors, there will be laws passed almost immediately preventing it saying that only those with natural wombs should have babies.
I am not a walking incubator, yet that was how I was treated in all my pregnancies. I had to obey the meical (read: male) establishment and submit to tests, probes, and procedures because they deamed it in the best interest of my child. Yet, if I made a fuss, they would guilt me with “not wanting the best for my/your baby.” If I dared question the validity or safety of a test, I was told to mind my own affairs and that this was something only edumacated doctors could decide on. I was told to follow restrictive diets that made my morning sickness so bad I couldn’t eat, restricted salt that made me swell and get migraines and if I dared have a single glass of wine, I was labelled abusive of the fetus – even if it was the glass of wine memorilizing my MIL. I’ve had drinks taken out of my hand so that the (usually male) “inspector” could taste it to make sure it wasn’t alcoholic. It is almost as if I’m expected to loose any intelligence I may have had as soon as I conceive. Doctors treat pregnancy as a disease instead of a natural part of life and if we dare ignore their sage advice, we’re “high risk.”
And heaven forbid I should want an abortion. Oh no. The prolifers won’t have that. This parasite in my womb must be birthed. But would I get any help after the birth? Nope. All they care about is the fruit of a man’s looms being born, not about the health of the mother at all.
the most annoying part for me is not that women shouldn’t have the choice, but that they don’t need choice, because they’re not able to make their own decisions anyway- it’s not illegal for the woman to have the abortion, but illegal for the doctor to perform it. which means the woman has no need for personal decisons- she’s not culpable for decisions about her own body. the whole point is that women are too stupid to make decisions about abortion. EVEN UNDERAGE CHILDREN are charged as adults and can be given the death penalty, and are held responsible for their actions, yet pregnant women are incapable?
i own my abortion. **I** did it. i went through the pain, it was my pregnancy, my responsiblilty, just as any resulting child would have been my responsibility if i’d continued the pregnancy, and fuck if i’d allow the woman at the clinic to take the felony conviction for me.
i should read the whole thing before i ask, but i suppose the person who provides the pills for ru-486 is still the responsible party, even if the person didn’t actually perform the abortion?
There’s no downside for them. They don’t have to win outright. But there’s always the chance that the courts will uphold just enough or put something in dicta that will further chip away at reproductive rights. And with Alito and Roberts on the Court now (do we not think the legislature’s timing is too convenient?), they perhaps have a better chance of coming through this with more of their law left standing than would have been the case on the Rehnquist Court.
“Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act ”
Ay, ay ay. More word games and frames from the right.
“Women’s Health”? — No regard for women’s health.
The “human life” in question? The fetus’, not the woman’s.
The name says it all.
EVEN UNDERAGE CHILDREN are charged as adults and can be given the death penalty…
Fortunately, that isn’t quite the case anymore. People can no longer be executed for crimes committed while they were under 18 years old.
We can just send them to the pen for the rest of their natural lives…
</threadjack>
jm brings up an interesting question – how would this ruling impact the abortion pill? I am assuming this would still fall under having/performing an abortion… as a result couldn’t importing the pills create a lucrative ‘black market’ – and another area that policing will have to get involved in? Yea for more tax dollars spent on criminalizing pointless things.
Whereas before ultrasound, women had no idea what was in there.
Many did. But we’re a visual species. There are a fair number of women who would consider abortion without having seen a 4d ultrasound, who (sometimes strongly) change their minds after seeing one. This one is a bit past the date where most women are making the decision (I think its 20 weeks or earlier for most terminations) but it gets the idea across.
I’m not so sure it’s win-win for the state, zuzu. As the linked story notes, the SD governor is concerned, probably rightly, that the federal courts could use the case not only to strike down this law, but other restrictions on abortion the state’s passed as well. Given also that Ayotte seemed to give the lower courts more leeway in fiddling with abortion regulations, I’d be cautious if I were a pro-life SD legislator voting on this bill.
Of course we didn’t. We were just shocked shocked! when after nine months a baby just popped out! We needed the men and their technology to let us know what was happening!
/sarcasm.
Sometimes I want to weep for humanity. Like right now.
God, I’m glad I live in NY.
Frikkin’ tags.
Robert: 25 weeks is WAY past the time most women who want an abortion have one. The majority of abortions are done in the first eight weeks of pregnancy, nearly 90% are done before the 12th week. Try this one for a picture of an embryo at a time when more women are considering abortion.
If only there were some button in the comment composition window that you could click, to automatically close any tags.
*cough*
:P
Apparently we’re a visual, gullible species.
But it was still a very pertinent image. D’you think Hunt would opt to disseminate the relevant picture, the one showing a fetus at the point in development at which most women abort, or the one showing a fetus at a much later stage?
The former, of course. Disseminating the latter would be deceptive and no politician and certainly no one in the pro-life movement would ever want to score a point based on deception, right?
There are a fair number of women who would consider abortion without having seen a 4d ultrasound, who (sometimes strongly) change their minds after seeing one.
Actually what I see happening is a woman going in to get an abortion because she cannot afford a child/does not deem herself ready to care for one/it actively threatens her life and that not changing just because she’s seen the face of the stomach bursting alien sucking the calcium from her bones.
showing a woman a ultrasound scan will only change the mind of an utter ditz who’s getting an abortion on a whim, the sort of woman who hasn’t just gone through several days of panic, and introspection. One who has not discussed her decision with anyone, who has no pressure pushing her either way before she even enters the clinic. she is a woman who is perfectly calm and her mind is utterly empty, floating as it does on a higher state of wu-hsin that is usually only achieved by bodhitsvatahs on the cusp of nirvana.
So basically, it’s our friend the strawslut and her 800 horsepower (that can accelerate from conception to viability in under 8 weeks) strawpregnancy.
The Pharyngula link doesn’t describe at what point in pregnancy it was imaged, so I’m really not sure what to make of it. Philips has a movie of a 12-week embryo here. It’s pretty human-looking, and it would make me think twice if I saw it inside me.
I imagine that propagandists of all sides will use whatever images best suit their cause. The point, however, is that 4d ultrasound is having a powerful impact on many women with ambivalent feelings about abortion. The reason is fairly obvious for anyone not drowning in snark; when you see something alive and moving inside you, it definitely creates a visual reality that wouldn’t necessarily exist for most folks. If I were 11 weeks pregnant, I would probably be thinking “glob of cells”, not “recognizably human baby” – and seeing something a lot closer to “baby” than “glob” would definitely be a thought-provoker.
Put it this way: tell people that there are children starving in Africa and ask for money for food relief. You’ll get some response. Show people a live video shot of a kid dying of starvation in African and ask for money, and you get a much stronger response.
showing a woman a ultrasound scan will only change the mind of an utter ditz who’s getting an abortion on a whim, the sort of woman who hasn’t just gone through several days of panic, and introspection.
OK. People running the clinics are saying that the ultrasounds are in fact having an effect and changing some women’s minds. Your low opinion of these women is noted.
People can no longer be executed for crimes committed while they were under 18 years old.
yeah, sorry, i forgot. i hate it when people use hyperbole to make their points; i should have been more careful.
and further on the ‘abortion pill’ bit: will they be able to go after a company or employee that sells anything that can be used as an abortifacient? i’m thinking about things like tinctures of black cohosh, equipment used for home menstrual extractions, etc. it’s sad to have to even think seriously about questions like these.
>”It’s pretty human-looking, and it would make me think twice if I saw it inside me.”
well Robert, that’s the beauty of CHOICE. anyone moved by the ultrsound image can CHOOSE not to abort. get it?
Rather, to fully protect the mother’s fundamental natural intrinsic responsibility to a relationship with her child, it would seem. That is, when you don’t have the opportunity to decline something you have the right to, it becomes an obligation.
And considering that, as Hunt noted, the fetus’s DNA is different from the woman’s, it is not a part of her and therefore there should be no reasonable problem to the woman going one way and the fetus going another. It is not a case of the fetus having the right to access a larger part of itself, because the woman in question is not a larger part of the fetus.
Yes, Kristen, I “get it”.
As do those of us who want to give women support for the choice not to abort. These ultrasounds are helping with that process.
As do those of us who want to give women support for the choice not to abort.
Gee Robert, in which state are women being threatened with the revocation of their right to carry their pregnancies to term?
That would be China.
Why is there such resistance and anger at the idea that an objective visual picture presented to women who are considering whether to bear a child or not, may have an impact on that decision?
It’s supposed to be about choice, is it not?
Why is there such resistance and anger at the idea that women already know they’re having babies and putting additional hurdles in their paths (ultrasound ain’t free) is demeaning?
The bill is a mindbogglingly daring attempt to reframe the issue to the opposite of the truth.
The bill is written as if the problem is women being *forced* to get abortions, and as if the right being protected is a woman’s right not to get an abortion.
And just to show their spinmeister chops, they throw out a string of 3 – count em – 3! – just-so-story adjectives: “fundamental natural intrinsic”. Maybe if we repeat stuff enough, they’ll start believing it – anyway, who could be against anything that is fundamental, natural, AND intrinsic?
And to keep the story going, they make it clear that the punisment falls on the doctor, who surely must have forced the abortion on the unsuspecting pregnant woman.
Perhaps they’re going for this reaction: “It’s so crazy it *must* be the truth!”
Why is there such resistance and anger at the idea that an objective visual picture presented to women who are considering whether to bear a child or not, may have an impact on that decision?
It’s supposed to be about choice, is it not?
Showing a photo of a 25-week fetus and presenting it as an eight-week fetus isn’t objective, that’s why.
China’s a state? When did that happen? I really should read the paper more often…Seriously, China’s policy is utterly disgusting and quite anti-choice. A policy that demands that a woman have an abortion no matter what her desires and circumstances is just as appalling as one that forbids her from having one.
The bill says the goal is to “fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother…”
Except, you know, her right to determine what happens within and to her own body, and her interests in things like being able to determine when and if she will bear a child, whether she can afford one, whether it is safe for her to do so, whether she even wants to …
“Fully protect” my ass.
[...] … and decides to test the Roberts court by banning abortion. Via piny at Feministe, we find a BaptistPress report: In a direct chal [...]
Showing a photo of a 25-week fetus and presenting it as an eight-week fetus isn’t objective, that’s why.
La Lubu, I posted a photo of a 25-week fetus and presented it as a photo of a 25-week fetus. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t make dishonest representations of my statements and actions. Thanks.
no, you said earlier in this thread that it was “a bit” past when most women were considering abortions. “A bit”, within the context of a 40-week pregnancy, would more accurately be described as within a couple of weeks—or certainly within a trimester, dont’cha think? If you has said “this is what a fetus looks like close to the third trimester” (and hence, long past the time almost all women are considering abortion), that would be different.
La Lubu, this is what I said:
“This one is a bit past the date where most women are making the decision (I think its 20 weeks or earlier for most terminations) but it gets the idea across.”
And the link opens up a headline in 20-point type saying “Stephanie’s Face at 25 Weeks”, and a post reading “This is my daughter Stephanie, imaged in the womb at around the 25th week”.
Nobody looking at what I presented could possibly interpret me as presenting my daughter as being eight weeks in.
If you want to quibble with the meaning of “a bit past”, fine. Quibble with that. Your original statement accused me directly of presenting a 25-week fetus as an 8-week fetus, which is manifestly false.
I apologize for the beating-of-a-dead-horse, but this is an emotional and important issue, and I don’t appreciate being misrepresented.
Look. A quick trip to Planned Parenthood’s site will show you that 88% of abortions in the United States are performed during the first trimester, which is at 12 weeks or less. If you had said in your earlier statement, “I think it’s 10 weeks or earlier” (when most women are making the decision), I wouldn’t have brought it up. It would have been true. “Twenty weeks or earlier” is dishonest. Very few abortions are ever performed at twenty weeks. Very, very few.
I apologize for the beating-of-a-dead-horse, but this is an emotional and important issue, and I don’t appreciate being misrepresented.
Fuckin’ A this is an emotional and important issue. It is also one that you will never have to face. Never. Never ever. You won’t ever have to worry about being told you can’t have chemotherapy until after you give birth (even though the increased hormones produced by your pregnancy are accellerating your cancer). You won’t ever be told that although you are in danger of dying from HELLP, that you can’t have an abortion—that you have to hold on for another three weeks until your fetus is “viable”. That your viability doesn’t count.
How many times do we have to say it? Abortion is a medical decision that is to be made by the pregnant woman. It’s her body. Not yours. And I resent men who will never have these tough decisions to face wanting to take away a woman’s right to make a medical decision about her own damn body.
No Robert, there’s a reason you picked “twenty weeks” out of your hat. A disingenous one.
It is also one that you will never have to face.
Actually, La Lubu, it is one that I already had to face, about thirty eight years ago. I had to face it; I didn’t have to make it.
I pulled twenty weeks out of my hat because that was the number that I recalled off-hand as being the point in pregnancy past which there are extremely few abortions.
When someone else mentioned that 12 weeks was the cut-off point by which the bulk of abortions were done, I didn’t demur; I instead posted a link to what a fetus of that age looks like on 4d ultrasound. Because the point of my original contribution was to note that 4d ultrasound is in fact having an effect on some women’s abortion decision, and to show why, for those who had perhaps not seen these images – a proposition which Zuzu had felt the need to mock. For some reason.
And I resent men who will never have these tough decisions to face wanting to take away a woman’s right to make a medical decision about her own damn body.
And your resentment would perhaps be more understandable if there were anyone at all in this forum making that case.
Instead, I am simply pointing out that when the people making this decision are given more information – such as, for example, what exactly the thing they are choosing to terminate looks like – sometimes the decision changes.
And the resistance to this simple proposition is remarkable, and telling.
knit-picky moment:
“a bit past” should actually be “a bit passed.”
/slight thread hijacking
Please do provide non-pro-life studies on that proposition, showing a significant change in abortion rates due to 4d ultrasound (and only 4d ultrasound, and not hectoring or having to wait an extra day to have it performed, making the abortion too costly, as many women can’t take additional time off from work). And perhaps I’ll overlook the fact that this little dig skirts ad hominem.
If your proposition is merely that “when the people making this decision are given more information — such as, for example, what exactly the thing they are choosing to terminate looks like — sometimes the decision changes,” then please explain why 4d ultrasound, something that may be harmful to the fetus if used improperly, is necessary. Wouldn’t some representative image of the stage at which the pregnancy is at suffice? Why put the woman through an additional medical procedure when she’s already made up her mind?
Because the only reason I can see, other than enriching those who own the ultrasound machines, is to actively discourage and interfere with the decisions of women who have already made an assessment of their ability to handle a pregnancy.
Since only pro-lifers are doing the ultrasounds, Zuzu, it’ll be a bit tricky to provide you with the evidence you demand. Maybe you can convince Planned Parenthood to run the machines for a while for their clients and collect data on their end, too.
Who here said anything about *requiring* ultrasound? As far as I understand, counselors at pregnancy support centers that provide it report that a lot of women who see the ultrasound decide they can’t kill what they saw on the screen, and decide to bear to term. I’ve seen occasional proposals floated to require the viewing of ultrasounds, but they don’t seem practical. Far more functional to simply make the technology widely available for anyone who is uncertain about what course of action to take.
Whether a representative image would suffice is unknown to me; I know from having our own 4d ultrasounds done that seeing the TV screen light up with our baby moving around was extremely powerful for both my wife and myself. She kept gnawing on her fist, like Hugo watching a girl’s swim meet, which was pretty funny. I’d seen the technology demonstrated and had thought it was impressive, but it did not prepare me for the emotional impact of seeing our child in the womb.
Why put the woman through an additional medical procedure when she’s already made up her mind? Because the only reason I can see…is to actively discourage and interfere with the decisions of women who have already made an assessment of their ability to handle a pregnancy.
“A medical procedure”? Zuzu, they smear some vaseline on your tummy and the technician holds a little piece of plastic against your skin. If that’s a medical procedure, then getting a Band-Aid removed is major surgery.
Discourage, yes. I can’t really envision the person who would see their fetus on the ultrasound and become more determined to have an abortion, though I suppose anything is possible.
“Interfere”? Interesting choice of words. It’s hard for me to understand the theory under which the voluntary transmission of objective data to someone making a decision constitutes interference.
Unless, of course, one is starting from the premise that one possible decision is privileged over the other possible decision – and that any data that might undermine that decision is thus a priori suspect, external, “interfering”.
But of course, nobody who genuinely believes in choice would start from that premise.
Well, since “pregnancy support centers” quite often engage in deceptive practices, or fail to give the full range of options (as Planned Parenthood does — yes, Robert, they do offer adoption referrals and prenatal care, being a true full-service operation), forgive me if I discount the data. These centers don’t offer the choice between abortion and continuing the pregnancy; they’re not offered the abortion option. And many of them string the women out until it’s too late to get an abortion. If you can show me that women who go in for abortions and can actually obtain abortions are dissuaded by ultrasounds, then perhaps I’ll believe you. But if your sample is limited to women who’ve been pressured into keeping their pregnancies and who *don’t* have the option of abortion presented by the same people who are pushing the ultrasound on them, then I can’t give your example credence.
There’s a reason they put a condom on that probe, Robert. I’m sure your insurance company would consider it a medical procedure if they were asked to pay for it. A blood test or skin scraping is also a medical procedure, as is an X-Ray or an MRI. Not all medical procedures are major surgery. Please ditch the hyperbole.
If a woman has decided that she wants an abortion for her own reasons, then yes, it *is* in fact privileged over the other possible decisions. Because it’s her body. And attempts to dissuade her from that decision based on non-medical reasons is, in fact, interfering. One can lay out the options without pushing one or the other by making her go through a medical procedure to show her how cute the bay-bee is anddon’tyouwanttokeephimandlovehimforever?
Again, you haven’t explained why an ultrasound would be necessary when a simple pictorial chart could accomplish the same purpose.
And get off your high horse about choice.
It is telling, Zuzu, that you cannot make your case without misrepresentation. Again, nobody is talking about MAKING anybody go through a medical procedure.
Some women who go through this arduous medical procedure – volitionally – end up making a different decision than the one they came in with. You don’t find this credible. Fine, don’t find it credible.
Again, you haven’t explained why an ultrasound would be necessary when a simple pictorial chart could accomplish the same purpose.
I believe I addressed this with my own personal testimony. If you do not find that credible, again – fine.
What’s your problem here, anyway? Nobody is making anybody take ultrasounds. You don’t believe that seeing the ultrasound would make a difference, anyway. So where’s your beef?
That some women are – of their own free will – choosing to see what exactly it is that’s inside them? Which – according to you – represents BOTH nothing that looking at a chart wouldn’t accomplish, AND represents a horrible non-medical propaganda push for looking
“how cute the bay-bee is anddon’tyouwanttokeephimandlovehimforever” ?
What’s WRONG with that?
What are you afraid these women are going to see?
I wonder when various states will start submitting legislation requiring doctors to inform women of the dangers of carrying a fetus to term, or the dangers of putting a baby up for adoption. After all, what we’re really concerned with here is making sure the woman makes an informed decision, right?
That actually happened when I lived in the Midwest. A group of pro-choice legislators got an amendment to one of those “informed consent” bills that would require women to be informed of the risks of childbirth. As you can imagine, that bill couldn’t get yanked fast enough.
I don’t, Robert, because you and your wife presumably wanted the pregnancy. You’re not, and you will never be, nor have you ever been (despite your peripheral involvement 38 years ago) in a position to be making the final decision as to whether to abort a fetus. Moreover, you won’t ever be required to wait 24 hours to get a medical procedure, even if they could fit you in right then and there, because someone in the state legislature has decided that you can’t be trusted to make your own decision on whether or not to get your appendix removed or that root canal done.
If some women *choose,* really choose, to utilize the ultrasound procedure, good on them. But I’m going to guess that the women who go to a crisis pregnancy center aren’t given the full range of options, or are pressured into accepting one or the other. And I’m going to further guess that they’re not necessarily truly choosing to undergo the procedure of their own free will.
There are plenty of states that pile on requirements and hurdles onto the decision of getting an abortion — 24-hour waiting periods are common, and then there are parental notifications and spousal notifications and judicial bypasses and what have you. And yes, there are states where requiring ultrasounds has been discussed.
Women aren’t going to see anything different with an ultrasound than they are with a fetal development chart. What, you have yet to explain, is a woman going to see in an ultrasound with regard to fetal development that she isn’t going to see on a development chart? Because if your purpose is simply to make her aware of fetal development, wouldn’t that suffice?
What are you afraid they’ll decide if they don’t see an ultrasound?
And you know what? Seeing an ultrasound isn’t going to get them a better job, it isn’t going to make their parents accept their pregnancies, it isn’t going to make their boyfriends not abuse them, it isn’t going to enable them to feed another mouth, it isn’t going to let them continue to school. In other words, it’s not going to erase the reasons they want to get an abortion now, so that they can be a better mother to the kids they have now or to the kids they have later.
Women aren’t going to see anything different with an ultrasound than they are with a fetal development chart. What, you have yet to explain, is a woman going to see in an ultrasound with regard to fetal development that she isn’t going to see on a development chart?
She’s going to see her own child, living within her body.
Because if your purpose is simply to make her aware of fetal development, wouldn’t that suffice?
Perhaps. When you decide that you want to reduce the number of women who choose to have abortions, why don’t you try your idea, and let the rest of us know how it works out in terms of changing minds. I think we’ll stick with giving out the ultrasounds.
What are you afraid they’ll decide if they don’t see an ultrasound?
To kill their child.
In other words, it’s not going to erase the reasons they want to get an abortion now
No, it won’t. But it will bring the reality of what is being done to life – and I believe that there are a number of women who genuinely believe, because it’s what they’ve been told by people that they trust, that what’s living inside them is just some cells, not something really alive, certainly not something whose existence they should give weight. And then they turn on the screen and there’s a little face staring out.
I believe there are women who, presented with that reality, will change their minds. You don’t; fine.
Nobody’s asking for your approval.
After all, it isn’t your choice.
No, Robert, but it’s not your choice, either. And you admit that your reasons are to get women not to “kill their child” rather than to just give them the information they need to make an informed decision and let them make it, rather than manipulate them into a desired outcome.
And do tell, what do these crisis pregnancy centers do for the “little face staring out” after it’s born? Do they provide medical care, schooling, rent support? Do they provide nonjudgmental support of its mother, or do they tell her she’s on her own and give her references for food stamps and welfare?
You know, to see a little face on an ultrasound, you’d actually have to be pretty damn far along in your pregnancy. Well past those first 10 weeks when the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed.
I can’t speak from personal experience, having the wrong anatomical package and all that, but I’m pretty sure that it will hit a pregnant woman that there’s something aliveish growing inside her when that first morning sickness comes. She doesn’t need an ultrasound to tell her something’s in there.
Just sayin’…
Evil fizz, did you look at the 12-week movie I linked to? Looks like a face to me. Here it is again.
And you admit that your reasons are to get women not to “kill their child” rather than to just give them the information they need to make an informed decision.
Sure. I admit this freely.
What’s your motivation?
And do tell, what do these crisis pregnancy centers do for the “little face staring out” after it’s born? Do they provide medical care, schooling, rent support? Do they provide nonjudgmental support of its mother, or do they tell her she’s on her own and give her references for food stamps and welfare?
Depends on the center. Not much, from what I understand. If you want private welfare, you pretty much have to go to a church. Or you can request that the father step up and fulfill his obligations. Or you can go to the state.
Is there something wrong with those options?
For that matter, does Planned Parenthood provide any of these things? * Cuz I’ve definitely been born, and could use some help with the rent.
* I assume that at least some pregnant women who go to PP decide not to have abortions, seeing as PP lays out the full panoply of non-abortion options for them.
Although my local PP doesn’t provide abortions, it does provide counseling to women and girls who have decided to carry out their pregnancies. Part of that counseling is pointing them toward the local resources that DO provide these services.
Luckily, my community has a number of resources available to low-income families that aren’t too hard to get if you meet the qualifications and are willing to jump through the hoops (and the hoops, they are humiliating). So there you go. PP doesn’t provide diapers and rent, but they’ll tell you how to get them free.
The worst thing I could ever see was the U/S of my fetus when I was 18 years old. See, it spontaneously aborted about three to four weeks later. I was horrified. My life was in danger yet the prolife groups were trying to convince me to have it. When it finally aborted, I lost a lot of blood and nearly my own life.
Shortly afterwards, the same prolife people called me. They were no longer interested in me nor did they provide any “post abortion” councelling. After all, I didn’t terminate my pregnancy. It terminated itself.
Not true. If you live in Indiana, and othr states, and want an abortion, you are a) required to take an ultrasound first, and b) pay for it.
Maybe so. But being “visual” doesn’t always mean being accurate. How many people were convinced that Terri Schiavo was mentally alive and cognitive based on videos seemingly showing her eyes following a moving balloon? But the autopsy found that Schiavo was blind.
We see eyes, a nose, tiny hands, and we think “ooh, it’s a baby!” But that reaction – instinctive, emotive – doesn’t make sense. An animated plastic sculpture of a baby – no matter how stunningly realistic – has a nose, tiny hands, and eyes, but it’s not a baby. And a disabled baby born without hands, eyes, nose is a baby nonetheless.
The core of what makes a person is their personality, and that resides in the brain – specifically, in the cortex. By denying that – by denying that there is any important difference between my two-year-old friend Sydney and a two-week-fetus – pro-lifers deny the reality of everything that makes us people.
My friend Robert will probably say my view is materialistic. That’s an ironic point, coming from someone who is saying that people should make decisions based on computer images.
Nonetheless, he’s right; I am materialistic. I am materialistic when I believe in Darwinism, I am materialistic when I believe in global warming, I am materialistic when I believe that Terri Schiavo was incapable of saying “I want to live” years after her cortex had liquefied, and I believe that saying that a being with no cortex is a person is not only ridiculous but an insult to actual people.
There’s a pattern emerging here. Being materialistic, in the sense that Robert means – that is, not being opposed to science and reason – seems to often be akin to being right.
Not true. If you live in Indiana, and othr states, and want an abortion, you are a) required to take an ultrasound first, and b) pay for it.
According to the Indiana Legislature’s statutes on line, this is not accurate. The physician is required to inform a pregnant woman that ultrasound images can be made, and has to show them to her if she asks for them, but there is no requirement that the ultrasounds be taken. The requirement is on abortion providers to make ultrasounds available on request, not on pregnant women to purchase or view them.
This appears to be confirmed by this news story, dated a couple of days ago, indicating that Indiana is one of the most restrictive states in terms of its consent law – and that even this most-restrictive place only requires that “Doctors also must offer to show women an ultrasound of the fetus.”
To make absolutely certain, I checked with the Guttmacher Institute, and their state page for Indiana makes no mention of ultrasound at all.
You have apparently been misinformed.
Okay then. I suck. You’re right.
I believe the required ultrasound law is getting ready to head toward the state legislature this term along with two or three others. I’m having a hard time keeping up with all the restrictive bills coming up for vote.
What don’t you women understand? We men must protect you from yourselves!
*ducks and runs*
On second though, I really shouldn’t say *ducks* anymore. Never know when there is a Cheney in the thread…
Thank you, thank you. I will be here all week! :D
Okay then. I suck. You’re right.
You don’t suck. You take seriously the statements of people who were sloppy with facts in this instance. That’s not a crime. Sometimes I’m sloppy with facts. (So I guess even if it is a crime I’m obliged to forgive it. Stupid religion.)
Just because something is visually horrifying to contemplate does not make it morally wrong. It IS harder to abort when you see an ultrasound picture – but that certainly doesnt make it wrong.
I had a really hard time (I had to drug myself) turning over my son for open-heart surgery when it wasn’t an emergency. Having to watch the surgery would have made me ill and at the first sight of a scalpel I probably wouldve changed my mind and tried to “rescue” my son. Would that make me a moral giant? I dont think so.
We are visual. Life is messy. Some people believe that circumcision is mutilation. If you disagree on religous grounds, or asthetic grounds, they call you a mutilator and monster. Instead of trying to present a reasoned arguement that might change minds they shove pictures of the circumcision procedure in front of your face to show you its “barbarity”.
All any of these pictures do is make it harder for women to do the right thing.
You dont know what someone looks like who would have an abortion after they saw an ultrasound?
They look like me. They look like any woman who has ever made a hard decision so the rest of her family benefits. Or a woman who has made a decision in favor of her own mental health. Or a woman who has made a decision not to burden the already overburdened foster care system with yet another unwanted burden. They look like all the women who have made the courageous choice to do what’s best for them and their families despite all the legal hurdles, financial hurdles and emotional blackmail you try to throw their way.
They are the true modern day heros.
I had an ultrasound to date my pregnancy prior to my abortion. Obviously, it didn’t make me change my mind – though it added another layer to an already confusing and scary decision. An ultrasound is very disingenuous(sp?) because it confuses scale and size.
A decade-plus and two children later, I am even more convinced of the sanity and good judgement to terminate that pregnancy.
“Women’s Health Protection Act”???!!! I can’t think of anything more antithetical to protection women’s health than a ban on abortion.
Kentucky is trying the same trick. They’ve introduced:
SB 125 – would require women to make 2 trips to Louisville or Lexington ( 2 largest cities in KY) to have a face to face visit 24 hours priro to an abortion. Physicians not following this provision would face criminal prosecution
HB-461 – same thing at SB 125
HB 489 – would ban all abortion except to save the life of the woman
HB 490 – same as SB 125- except would require health care providers to repeat state-madated information unrelated to standared informed consent to each woman seeking an abortion.
Yup, it’s just another challenge designed to get the “argument” before the Supreme Court. It’s what the right-wing religious fanatic nutjobs have been angling for since Reagan took office. Makes me so mad I can’t see straight. Oh, yeah, I’ll be calling my legislators out on this issue!!!
Wait, two different kinds of organizations are providing two different kinds of services to their patients? No!
Jon, dude. What is it with you and the tagging? The buttons are right there.
Simply to ensure that the godbags don’t interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.
Of course, at the end of the day, Robert and Jon C. stand to lose NONE of their personal automony. You might not agree with the choice, but as men, you really don’t have the right to enter into the debate. Our bodies, our choices.
If you’re so pro-life, you should be beating down the doors of congress to expand health-care for the bay-beez, as well as access to adequate education, nutrition, housing, etc. I wonder if you are?
Are the pro-choice bloggers here opposed to legislation that would allow pregnant women considering abortion the option of viewing a live ultrasound image of the fetus?
The vast majority of abortion providers should be and are using ultrasound to confirm that a woman is pregnant and the pregnancy isn’t ectopic. During these ultrasounds, the abortion provider would be required to ask the woman if she wants to see the image or not.
Is there a problem with giving women the option of viewing the ultrasound if the abortion provider is using an ultrasound? The woman can say no if she wants. She can say yes if she wants.
Good point, Kelley, although to be fair (just for the academic exercise), some pro-lifers do show concern for the already born. I think the pro-life leadership refers to these people as “the useful idiots” privately, but I can’t be sure.
What I’ve never seen any pro-lifer do is lobby for more funding for research into the reasons that up to 80% of concepti fail to implant. Think about it. If every fertilized egg is a baby, then 80% of babies are dying in the first few weeks of life! Why are the pro-lifers ignoring this pandemic? Ok, the “murder” rate is pretty high, too, from their point of view, but why spend all your time and energy on that when there is a medical pandemic of proportions that make the worst-case scenario of a possible bird flu pandemic look minor? Where are the political groups lobbying for massive funding through the NIH into the reasons for these deaths? Where are the private foundations set up to give grants to researchers seeking a cure? Why aren’t the legislators who are so concerned about the “pre-born” earmarking funds for research into this problem? I know I’ve asked this before, but I’ve never gotten any sort of answer so here goes again. Anybody?
Why would you need legislation for that? If the doctor thinks that it’s indicated, it should be discussed with the patient and the patient should make the decision. Period. End of story. It’s already covered by the doctor-patient relationship and, as you say, ultrasound is already commonly used.
In any event, given that ultrasound is a diagnostic tool, there seems to be no medical reason for offering the patient the option of viewing the ultrasound. The patient doesn’t know how to read it. Putting such a provision into law would, again, constitute an intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship, because in order to “allow” women the option, you’re going to have to require doctors to offer it.
Jivin: Yes, there is a problem: such legislature is micromanaging medicine to a ridiculous degree. Would you support a similar law requiring a doctor to show his or her patients the ultrasound image of a gall stone before he or she consents to its removal? Why not? It is almost always necessary to do an ultrasound before a cholescytectomy and the patient should know what he/she is giving up, right? Or what about requiring the patient to see an image of his or her cancer before consenting to its removal? Cancer is genetically different from its host, just life the fetus, after all.
Jivin: Yes, there is a problem: such legislature is micromanaging medicine to a ridiculous degree. Would you support a similar law requiring a doctor to show his or her patients the ultrasound image of a gall stone before he or she consents to its removal? Why not? It is almost always necessary to do an ultrasound before a cholescytectomy and the patient should know what he/she is giving up, right? Or what about requiring the patient to see an image of his or her cancer before consenting to its removal? Cancer is genetically different from its host, just life the fetus, after all.
A) Sorry about the double post.
B) “…life the fetus” should be “…like the fetus”. Indicating that I was not paying attention to editing OR whether I had already submitted or not.
The question is when does all of this bullshit become an “undue burden?” Until, or if, the High Court overturns Roe, the States can impose such restrictions as are not an “undue burden.”
To me, of course, anything other than informing the woman of the risks of the procedure and insuring that the clinician is competent and the facility is clean are “undue burdens.” But the so-called pro-lifers are ingenuous. They seek to ban abortion not only law but with under the table actions designed solely to make the life of the woman who has already made her decision a misery.
Fight against the law if you want but until you succeed please leave these poor women alone! They’ve got enough stress without you all fucking with their heads.
Totally OT
Zuzu,
hunted wish lists in vain for correct zuzu.
Hence,
*virtual flowers* to you.
You’re one of my heros.
Happy Valentines Day,
The Magis
Aw, thanks, Magis!
No. If a pregnant woman requests an ultrasound, there is no good reason for her doctor to refuse to show her. However, there is no other medical procedure — except abortion — where doctors are legally required to show their patients an internet view of their bodies solely for the purpose of trying to convince them to make a certain decision. Should we legislate a requirement that amputation patients be shown a picture of a severed leg before their surgery? Or that triple-bypass patients be shown a video of clogged-up arteries before they proceed? Obviously, if these things are requested, go for it — but no one would argue that unnecessarily additional medical procedures should be legally required for anything else.
I don’t think any pro-choicers argue that women absolutely should not have ultrasounds. We’re simply saying that legally requiring doctors to offer them is ridiculous and coercive.
Wait. Read that question wrong. I thought it said, “Are the pro-choice bloggers here opposed to allowing pregnant women considering abortion the option of viewing a live utlrasound image of the fetus?”
The answer to that is “no.” My answer to your actual question about legislation is yes, I am opposed to that kind of coercive legislation.
Jill,
Just to clarify. The legislation I mentioned wouldn’t force abortion providers to give ultrasounds to pregnant women (even though it’s proper and standard medical care). The legislation would tell them to give women the option of viewing an ultrasound if the abortion provider does an ultrasound. So there’s no additional medical procedure. The procedure would already be taking place and the woman would be given the option having the screen turned around. If she doesn’t want it turned then it won’t be turned. I’ll have to look and see what other kinds of informed consent laws there are for other procedures – my dentist showed me a variety of things but I don’t if he was forced to do that by law.
But why would it be ridiculous to require abortion providers to give ultrasounds? The only way (at least that I know of and correct me if I’m wrong) to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy is by ultrasound. It doesn’t seem ridiculous to me to want to make sure that a woman doesn’t have an ectopic pregnancy.
From the responses of most of the pro-choicers it appears that the opposition to this legislation is more based on the desire to avoid “micro-managing” how an abortion provider and pregnant woman interact than giving women the option of viewing their ultrasound. I’m wondering if you all would feel different if a large number of women considering an abortion were not allowed to see an ultrasound at the abortion clinic even though they desired it. Are there other ways which you wouldn’t be against which make sure that women are given the option of viewing or made aware that they have this option?
Dianne, I personally don’t have a huge problem with laws that allow patients the option of viewing something related to their upcoming surgery. When I had my wisdom teeth removed I watched a video about the procedure, was given x-rays or photographs of how the teeth were located, etc. I’d prefer to be informed about what’s being removed from me especially if all the doctor has to do is ask me if I want the screen to be turned and I be in favor of such legislation if my doctor didn’t take the time to let me view it.
Cancer, however, isn’t a living human organism. Prolifers don’t usually claim that the unborn deserve legal protection because their DNA is different. They usually claim their DNA is different after a pro-choicer claims that the unborn are physically part of the mother.
Again, this interferes in the doctor-patient relationship. The medical provider is the one who needs to see the ultrasound, not the patient. Why not leave it up to the doctor’s discretion whether to offer a peek at the screen to the patient? I daresay that’s what already happens. Mandating that the doctor offer the choice is coercive and interfering because it has nothing to do with treatment.
It’s ridiculous because the object of ultrasound laws is not to assist the doctor in medical treatment, but to try to get the patient to change her mind — because they all require that the patient view the screen. It also takes the decision out of the hands of the doctor, who’s the one who needs to decide whether an ultrasound is indicated (I’m not sure where you’re getting your information on ectopic pregnancies, but by the time a woman is aware that she’s pregnant and is seeking an abortion, an ectopic pregnancy can become very painful and potentially life-threatening. So it’s not like she doesn’t know something’s unusual).
Simply put, ultrasound laws are just another way for the state to insert itself into the doctor-patient relationship.
It isn’t? Is it not human, not living, or not an organism? Cancer cells are certainly alive. They’re clearly human cells–it’s not like human tissue turns into rhinocerous tissue when it becomes cancerous. It may have slightly different DNA and have a few genes turned on that really should be turned off, but the cells are certainly still human. I’m not sure what you mean by an organism, but cancer cells can survive independently of their host–just plop them in culture medium and you can keep them forever–see HeLa cells. So, how are they not living, human organisms?
zuzu’s already handled the ultrasound question more eloquently than I could have, but just wanted to add that I certainly think that a doctor should show his or her patients images from any scans taken of their body that they would like to see. I’m just objecting to a law forcing doctors to do so regardless of their clinical judgement and circumstances. For example, what if they need to do an emergency D and C on a patient who is unconcious and bleeding? Do they have to try to wake her and show her the ultrasound even though the attempt could kill her? The way the law is written it sounds like they would.
Zuzu,
So is your concern more that the abortion provider isn’t impeded or that the woman is given a choice to view her ultrasound or not? What if the woman requests to view the ultrasound and the abortion provider turns her down? Is the abortion provider in the wrong or is his discretion the trump card? (I’d say right bower instead of trump card but non-Michiganders are usually unfamiliar with euchre)
Do you think most abortion providers offer women considering an abortion the option of looking at a live ultrasound image?
But the state is involved is various ways in the doctor-patient relationship already. States require doctors to give patients information about the risks of various procedures, possible alternative treatments, etc. etc. It’s not like the doctor/patient relationship is something the state can’t or shouldn’t legislate. (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_1_2X_Informed_Consent.asp)
From the information I’ve seen most ectopic pregnancies present in the 4th thru 10th week of pregnancy and since many abortions are performed earlier than the 10th week it seems that at least some women seeking abortions will have no clue they have an ectopic pregnancy since they wouldn’t have any symptoms except a positive pregnancy test. Plus, what percentage of people know what the symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy are? What if the medical community (say the AMA or the ACOG) says that ultrasound should be used? Does the opinion of an abortion provider trump the AMA and the ACOG?
You are incorrect about ultrasound legislation. Not every ultrasound law requires a woman to view the screen. For example, the Michigan legislature is currently debating a law that is just as I’ve described. The law originally forced abortion providers to give an ultrasound but has been revised to eliminate the forced procedure. The woman is given the option of viewing the ultrasound or not. See isn’t forced to look at it if she doesn’t want.
Why is it necessary to mandate this? What difference does it make to the course of treatment if the doctor offers a look or doesn’t?
There is no sound medical reason to force doctors to offer their patients a view of the ultrasound. None. Leave it to the discretion of doctors whether they wish to do so.
Dianne,
Do you believe cancer is a human organism? Is human cancer a member of the species homo sapiens? Do you have an experts that says cancer is an organism? My guess is that the large majority of the medical field sees cancer cells as a part of an organism – the individual with cancer – and not an organism unto themselves. I’m open to evidence to the contrary.
From the ultrasound legislation that I’ve read (Michigan’s) there is a medical emergency exemption which is in the state’s informed consent law. I’m guessing this is how it works in other states but I could be mistaken.
Several million cancer cells sitting in an incubator about 10 meters from me say that cancer cells have the potential to be separate organisms, whether they are currently situated within their host or not. Unlike an embryo, which can not exist outside of the uterus after the first few cell divisions. As I said, I’m not sure exactly what your definition of organism is, but if it is an entity capable of living independently then cancer cells are, embryos aren’t.
I saw an ultrasound of the CLP at 12 weeks. I found it really difficult to connect the picture on the screen with anything that was going on inside my body, and it didn’t sink in that this was a baby (rather than, say, a bout of food poisoning) until I started to feel movement around 19 weeks.
Maybe I’m just weird….
This may be your best argument. I’ve seen claims that some cell lines (ie HeLa cells) have actually speciated. However, it’s hard for me to accept that all cancers, or even all cancers capable of growing in cell culture, have speciated. Species boundries are a bit of an artificial line anyway. But while we’re on the subject, why is it so important whether or not an organism is human? Why does humanity matter? Is it only because we are human and fear that if we don’t pretend that we are special we’ll open ourselves to the possibility of being murdered?
We can stop now. Nick wins. No comment will top hers.
Agreed. I saw several ultrasounds during my pregnancies and never knew what the hell was going on on the screen. Green blob? Great — but what is it?
Lauren, that’s why the 4d Ultrasounds pics are so great. You get a really detailed picture. It’s like going from an Atari 2600 to a 1200×800 screen.
Dianne,
So then are there any reputable experts in biology who’ll claim that cancer is an organism? Have “the potential to be separate organisms?” What does that mean? Who is cancer’s parent or parents? I find it completely unscientific to think that humans could asexually create another organism with different DNA and which isn’t their species. Seems to kind of violate the Law of Biogenesis.
It’s important because you’re comparing cancer (an entity that is part of another organism and certainly isn’t a member of the species homo sapiens) with the unborn (who are organisms unto themselves and are members of the species homo sapiens) and seem to expect me to accept that comparison as valid.
So do you not think that human beings are special?
If women can’t really tell what’s going on in an ultrasound then why is it so wrong to have legislation which gives women considering abortion the choice of whether or not they can view their ultrasound?
How many times do people have to tell you: because it’s unwarrented intervention into the doctor/patient relationship. I’m not saying that legislatures should never intervene in that relationship, but they should have a really compelling reason to do so. You haven’t yet explained what the really compelling reason would be.
It’s happening, whether you believe it or not.
For an article on HeLa cells and whether they are a separate organism and/or species, see here
A quote from the article: “As another example, back in the mid-1950s, a biopsy of cervical cancer was removed from a woman named Henrietta Lacks and grown in tissue culture. While Ms. Lacks died long ago, HeLa cells are a widely-cultured research “organism” available through a number of biological supply companies. Recently, an interesting issue has arisen regarding these cells: are they still “human?” While HeLa cells currently being grown in tissue culture are descendents of the original human cancer cells, by now they have mutated so much that it’s questionable whether they can still be considered “human” tissue.”
Creepy, isn’t it?
Another summary of the issue is here
Quote from the above: “But say you’re a scientist looking at HeLa cells under a microscope. They live independently of the body they came from. They reproduce (faster even than other cancerous cells). They consume, excrete, and do everything an independent living organism usually does. A thousand years from now there will still be HeLa cells multiplying and living, even some of the original cells sampled from Mrs. Lacks, even though Henrietta Lacks herself has long since passed away. Is this a new species?
In 1991 the scientific community decided it was, and blessed HeLa cells with its own genus and species: Helacyton gartleri, named by Van Valen & Maiorana.”
As I said, you can argue that cancer cells aren’t human (or, in this case, even primates) but they certainly can be grown as separate organisms. It is further suspected, although I don’t know and I don’t want to know anyone willing to do the experiment necessary to prove it, that some cancers (teratomas) have the potential to become normal humans if they are given the right conditions. Specifically, if you were to insert the nucleus of a teratoma into an enucleated egg cell then implant it in a uterus it would probably produce a baby who is similar to, but not exactly the same as, his or her genetic parent. But as I said, as far as I know, that is speculation based on the characteristics of the tumor, not proven.
Love the “have you stopped beating your husband yet” phrasing. I do think that humans are special. I think that they are special because they can think and are self-aware. It is important to avoid hurting people because they suffer when they are hurt. An embryo has none of those characteristics. A fetus may, in the later stages of pregnancy (around 30 weeks or so), be able to feel and think to a certain extent, although it is by no means clear that they do so, given the low pO2 of their environment. A twelve week fetus certainly doesn’t since it doesn’t have the cortical equipment with which to think yet.
So, do you think humans are special and if so why?
Hi Dianne,
Though Ms. Lacks is dead, it makes no sense to use Ms. Lacks death as a reason to say that the cells that originated in her body are a different organism. Frozen sperm can exist after the death of an individual yet I don’t think sperm are organisms. What about stem cell lines? Are stem cell lines organisms as well?
You probably shouldn’t use the Disenchanted Dictionary as a source. It’s not quite the most scientific source when your looking for scientific evidence. The fact that Leigh Van Valen and Virginia Maiorana thought that HeLa cells should be given a species name in an article in Evolutionary Theory doesn’t mean that the “scientific community” has accepted and “blessed” that designation. A google search of “Helacyton gartleri” (with the quotation marks) nets a mere 637 hits. I don’t think this idea is mainstream by any means.
Plenty of animals “can think and are self-aware,” right? Do they deserve the same basic rights as human being who can think and are self-aware? If not, why not? Are they “special” as well? If they are then humans aren’t really “special” then, right?”
Sorry if you felt my question was poorly worded. It probably was. But you said, “Is it only because we are human and fear that if we don’t pretend that we are special we’ll open ourselves to the possibility of being murdered?” which made me wonder (especially the pretend part) if you thought humans were special.
Yes, I think humans are special but I don’t think any specific criteria (like self-awareness or viability or consciousness) which I thinks makes them special. I guess part of the reason I think human beings are special is because I’m a human being. Another reason I think that human beings at all stages of development are special is that the various criteria used to discriminate against human beings (by not giving them basic rights) usually leads me to beliefs that I find rather ridiculous.
No. Only three animals (humans, chimpanzees, dolphins) have been definitively demonstrated to be self-aware. And not every individual of any of these species except humans has been so demonstrated. (Ok, the occasional human with severe brain damage is not self-aware, but any adult, healthy human is self-aware. At least enough to pass the rouge test.) Probably most or all mammals, maybe some birds and reptiles, can think to some extent. I don’t believe in hurting or killing animals if it can be avoided without harming people either.
Why is that statement any more reasonable than “I think whites/men/straights/Christians/Americans/people of greater than average height/whatever are special because I am one”? I apologize if that question sounds sarcastic, it isn’t meant to be. It’s just…basic. Like the question of what a number is or what life is: something that is usually taken as known to all, but in fact can break down at the edges and thus needs to be defined.
Green blob? Great — but what is it?
Oh ut laura now it’s a moving green blob! so it’s like playing a game of puzzle bobble on an atari, and just so long as you don’t whimfully decide to abort, the doctors will let you go home with your very own XX-box gaming system!
Green blob? Great — but what is it?
Now with me, it was a bit different. I was all “Nice picture of a cute baby parasite. Inside me, you say? No, surely not.”
Hi Dianne,
Are newborn infants self-aware? Do you have any evidence to prove they are? From my experience with newborns, they are far less aware of themselves and their surroundings than numerous animals. And I thought the time when infants passed the rouge test was something like 6 months or so?
Should self-aware animals (like certain chimps and dolphins) be given the same basic rights as self-aware human beings? If not, why not?
You say, “I don’t believe in hurting or killing animals if it can be avoided without harming people either.” So I guess Burger King is not an option for lunch?
I believe my statement is more reasonable because it doesn’t discriminate against other human beings based on arbitrary criteria like race, height, etc. I guess I could ask the same of you – why is self-awareness the criteria we should use and not other arbitrary criteria like race, sex, etc.? Why discriminate based on that criteria and not a plethora of other possible criteria? Why is self-awareness so important, especially when it’s not certain that young born members of our species have it?