Contraception, Abortion and Komen – Discussion

On February 9, 2012 I posted my commentary "Contraception, Abortion and Komen" and on February 13, 2012 I posted my commentary "Contraception, Abortion and Komen (Continued)." I urge readers to re-read these commentaries before reading the discussion, which follows.

Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia, enthused:

I read your original blog after receiving today's comments on it. Bravo to you for exposing this covert religious effort to demean and endanger women by eviscerating hard-won rights.

Irving Lesnick Esq. of Boca Raton, Florida brought us this insight:

On the subject of when human life begins, there is a statement in the Bible on the subject:  Genesis Chap 2, Verse 7: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed life into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” This seems to say that a fetus becomes a human when it starts breathing, which is when it is born alive.

I never understood why this verse is never referred to in the "when does life begin argument."

To which I responded:

Thanks so much for your input. 

It is startling to find that not only does the Bible not support the theory that life begins at conception, but it actually supports the view that life begins when the fetus begins to breath on its own, i.e., when the umbilical cord is cut.

It appears that the fundamentalists not only ignore science, but even the Bible, that they claim to revere.

Finally Professor Robert Malchman of Brooklyn, NY made this contribution:

"I think that even during the time when abortion was always illegal, and even birth control was a violation of law; it was when the fetus is capable of existing outside the womb, i.e. when the umbilical cord is cut." If I recall correctly, there was also a distinction made when the fetus "quickened," that is, could be felt to move. Killing of a quickened fetus had more substantial penalties than pre-quickened abortions. Now, of course, a fetus can live as a baby outside the womb by the third trimester. Roe v. Wade allows states to prohibit abortion in the third trimester and although viability is not the sole basis for the trimester system Roe creates, it has a logic to it. If the fetus can live, one shouldn't have the right at that point to choose an extraction process that kills it. What will be interesting is when science, as is inevitable, can grow a fetus outside a woman, a true "test-tube" baby. At that point, it will be interesting to see if extraction is permitted, but abortion forbidden (i.e., the woman has a right to remove the fetus, but not to terminate it), or if the debate shifts from a woman's right to control her body to the right to choose whether to bring a life into the world. If it becomes the latter, it will also be interesting to see what rights, if any, fathers may acquire -- of course as it stands now in the body-control regime, there are none.

To which I responded:

Thanks for your comment. You raise some interesting questions. I don't think I agree with some of your moral conclusions. I don't agree with the Sup. Ct. holding that viability controls. Even then I wouldn't want to criminalize it. As for a test tube baby, I would assume if it became possible, it would be made illegal. As for the father, that opens up a whole new debate, but I don't believe that under any circumstances, anyone but the person who is carrying the fetus should be allowed to determine how her body is to be used. The fundamental right has to be the women's right to control her own body and all that resides within it.

Additional comments received on or before February 20, 2011 will be distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.