Divine Impulses: Richard Land

For Ken: Sorry fella, but I have been a obgyn and ectopic pregnancy researcher for probably longer than you have been alive. I fear you are the one needing education in human reproduction. And yes, over the years I have discussed (I try not to back anyone into a corner) the question with pro-Life patients, doctors, researchers, etc.

In almost half of all pregnancies, more than one egg is fertilized -- multiple gestations. The percentage is even higher in in vitro fertilizations. Many researchers, myself included, think the majority of what you would like to call "human entities" die in the womb. Therefore the process of becoming pregnant in the first place creates and then kills the "human entities" you wish to protect by outlawing abortion.

In about 10 percent of pregnancies, even where one or more embryos or fetuses are viable, things go drastically wrong. The well known ectopic pregnancy (where the embryo develops in the fallopian tube instead of the uterus and can kill the mother as well as the fetus) is one example.

Even more bizarre things can occur -- embryos that develop inside other embryos, embryos that develop without brains or other major organs, and embryos that develop with one brain but two bodies or two brains in one body, for example. I assume you consider all these variations are "human entities" and should not be aborted even if carrying the fetus to full term would kill the mother.

Having human DNA is not the founding principle for what constitutes "human." A cancerous tumor meets your criteria for human -- "an entity which is undeniably human, unquestionably living" -- but I doubt you would hesitate to "abort" a tumor if you had one. There are two criteria most of my colleagues use -- having a brain and viability (the ability to live outside the womb). Anything else is not human, it is "part human" in the first case and "potentially human" in the second.

"One more thing: Choice is an inalienable right given to us from GOD,"

The term choice is meaningless without reference to what is being chosen. More accurately, we can make choices when we are aware of alternatives, but not all choices are salutary or innocent of consequences. That choice devoid of its reference has become a mantra for one side of the abortion debate is evidence that the thought of killing a child in the womb must be hidden, lest our humanity recognize the evil we do.

"Of course an abortion means the destruction of human life, but it should still be permitted, because banning abortion would increase the sum total of human suffering in the world."

Brilliant! If we kill a child we eliminate some potential suffering. If we kill everyone, we eliminate all suffering!

"I have yet to hear a convincing argument for WHY two cells in a woman's body which may, or may not, be carried full term to become a human being -- is considered "human life." When backed into a corner, all the pro-lifers end up with talking about a "soul."

At the point of fertilization, an entity which is undeniably human, unquestionably living, and genetically distinct from the mother in whose womb it will develop exists. This is not a theological formulation, but a biological verity.

It is abortion apologists who quibble about sentience and viability, the secular equivalent of "ensoulment," as the defining parameter of humanity deserving consideration. Regardless, Christian, Hindu, Pagan or secularist, abortion is, beyond reasonable contradiction, the deliberate destruction of a living human being, and that needs to be faced squarely before championing "choice" without regard of its consequences.

It is easy, Dawn, to mischaracterize pro-life arguments with imaginary opponents, but I doubt you've backed any real life people into any corners with your ill-formed and biologically ignorant premises.

One more thing: Choice is an inalienable right given to us from GOD.

We are born-again believers and know that GOD has writtern HIS LAWS on the hearts of mankind: Romans 2:14-15, and also that HE puts choice in our spirits, hearts and souls, ie: the two trees in the garden of Eden. Of course GOD could have made it mandatory to serve HIM, but HE wants us to have the CHOICE to make that decision. Man cannot create laws that would make us moral or immoral, that's a choice that only we can make as individuals between us and GOD. Choice, like gravity, will always exist - it is a law of GOD. Attempts to legislate morality are moot.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument for WHY two cells in a woman's body which may, or may not, be carried full term to become a human being -- is considered "human life." When backed into a corner, all the pro-lifers end up with talking about a "soul." Show me a "soul" someone. Prove scientifically that "souls" exist, and then I will agree that abortion should be banned. Until then, the pro-life folks are just trying to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Why is it that liberals never ask a man if he can balance family demands with his job?
Rudy Giuliani. Former Republican mayor of New York City. Spoken in his nominating speech at the Republican National Convention. September 4, 2008.

As a voter I want to know which will Sarah Palin put first, her family or her country?
Sally Quinn, Partisan Democrat columnist for the Washington Post.
Spoken by her during her appearance on the O’Reilly Factor. September 5, 2008.

Does anyone detect any sexism here? Is the Washington Post insulting all working women by not disavowing Quinn’s comment? Forget doing anything about this. Her husband, Ben Bradlee, is the Editor in Chief of the Post.

Of course an abortion means the destruction of human life, but it should still be permitted, because banning abortion would increase the sum total of human suffering in the world.

But then, as a Christian, Dr. Land wouldn't be concerned with human suffering, would he? Remember the Cathars and the Inquisitors!

Dr. Land is willing to let women and families twist slowly, slowly in a wind of torment as long as his theological abstractions are maintained.

Nice guy.

Hartman_John, some deeply concerned Christians are of the opinion that the growing child in womb isn't actually saying "yes" to abortion and would choose life for itself at all times. Life is God's gift to that child.

What used to be the best thing about the United States was that you could believe in whatever you wish and as long as you didn't tread on the rights of your fellow citizens, your beliefs were your own and just fine.
Now we are faced with the Facist christians who think that only their belief system is correct and that christian beliefs should be enshrined in stone as the governing rule for the entire country.
This nation has filled up with slack-jawed cretins who fail to understand what made the U.S. unique amongst the world - FREEDOM. And that menas freedom from christianity along with all the other absurd religious traditions.
If YOU don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
Leave the rest of us alone.

"I am not a pacifist," Land says of abortion. "It is defensible and moral to use lethal force to protect human life" when a woman's life is endangered by her pregnancy.

__________________________________________________

The term for "use of lethal force" Dr Land is "medical termination of pregnancy." An obstetrician makes the decision as part of his routine medical care for his patient. The obstetrician does not wage a war with the unborn child, merely makes the difficult decision to take its life if he/she cannot save the life of the mother and child, which is what is normally attempted. To keep both alive is always the obstetrician's first goal.

Your support for homosexual civil unions is laudable. Bishop Tutu made a very good case for the homosexuals in his essay on this forum last year.