Our anonymous reader “Democracy” summarizes the legal and religious disputes over abortion, which center on the question, “When does life begin?” And a second question: “Should believers be allowed to impose their views on others?”
Democracy writes:
In Roe v. Wade (1973), Justice Harry Blackmun researched – and struggled with – the question, when does human life begin?
The majority decision in Roe noted this:
“The Constitution does not define ‘person’ in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to ‘person.’ The first, in defining ‘citizens,’ speaks of ‘persons born or naturalized in the United States’” The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. ‘Person’ is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, in the Emolument Clause, in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only POSTNATALLY. None indicates that it has any possible pre-natal application. [Emphasis mine]
In that case, the state of Texas made claim that human life begins at conception.
The Texas Court said this:
“Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
The Supreme Court decision went on:
“There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”
This was where abortion rights and “the right to life” stood, until Samuel Alito and his Republican Taliban colleagues imposed their narrow religious beliefs on the rest of American in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022).
When Alito’s Dobbs draft leaked in the media, political analyst Ron Brownstein wrote thisi n May, 2022, in describing what the Supreme Court religious zealots were about to do:
“Alito’s draft, if finalized, would place the GOP-appointed Supreme Court majority firmly on a collision course with the priorities and preferences of the racially and culturally diverse younger generations born since 1980, who now constitute a majority of all Americans and who overwhelmingly support abortion rights…That shift, which Trump hastened with his overt appeals to the racial and social grievances of the most culturally conservative white Americans, has fueled the increasing volatility and belligerence of modern politics—and it only stands to intensify…For decades, a majority of Americans have supported legalized abortion in at least some circumstances. Opposition to overturning Roe v. Wade hit 69 percent in a CNN survey earlier this year, and 61 percent in a poll released by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute on Tuesday. In the PRRI poll, 64 percent of respondents said abortion should remain legal in all (28 percent) or most (36 percent) circumstances…The biggest exception to this trend: A large majority of white evangelical Americans, a cornerstone GOP constituency, oppose legal abortion.”
NPR reported this in early May, 2022:
“6 in 10 U.S. adults (61%) say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases…While the rate of abortions increased significantly in the decade after Roe v. Wade, it has since decreased to below the 1973 level…Pregnancy and childbirth are far more dangerous than getting an abortion, according to data from the CDC…Over 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester (by 13 weeks)…Medical researchers agree a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until the third trimester, somewhere between 29 or 30 weeks…More than 60% of abortion patients have a religious affiliation.”
The Guttmacher Institute, “a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States,” reports these data related to abortion:
“About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children…The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner…Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant.”
It would appear — from the data — that the conservative Supreme Court members AND the Republican Party are at war with women, and especially POOR women.
More Guttmacher data:
“About half of American women will have an unintended pregnancy, and nearly one-third will have an abortion, by age 45.
• The overall U.S. unintended pregnancy rate remained stagnant between 1994 and 2006, but unintended pregnancy increased 50% among poor women, while decreasing 29% among higher-income women.
• Overall, the abortion rate decreased 8% between 2000 and 2008, but abortion increased 18% among poor women, while decreasing 28% among higher-income women.
• Nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
• A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions:
- 58% are in their 20s;
- 61% have one or more children;
- 56% are unmarried and not cohabiting;
- 69% are economically disadvantaged; and
- 73% report a religious affiliation.”
Republicans are finding out that the dystopian world they have created is not popular, and represents a clear and present danger to ALL civil liberties in the American republic.
Here’s how Margaret Atwood explained it in The Atlantic (May 13, 2022):
“When does a fertilized human egg become a full human being or person?…The hard line of today’s anti-abortion activists is at ‘conception,’ the moment at which a cluster of cells becomes ‘ensouled.”
“But any such judgment depends on a religious belief—namely, the belief in souls. Not everyone shares such a belief. But all, it appears, now risk being subjected to laws formulated by those who do. That which is a sin within a certain set of religious beliefs is to be made a crime for all.”
“It ought to be simple: If you believe in ‘ensoulment’ at conception, you should not get an abortion, because to do so is a sin within your religion. If you do not so believe, you should not—under the Constitution—be bound by the religious beliefs of others. But should the Alito opinion become the newly settled law, the United States looks to be well on the way to establishing a state religion…Massachusetts had an official religion in the 17th century. In adherence to it, the Puritans hanged Quakers.”
“The Alito opinion purports to be based on America’s Constitution. But it relies on English jurisprudence from the 17th century, a time when a belief in witchcraft caused the death of many innocent people. The Salem witchcraft trials were trials—they had judges and juries—but they accepted “spectral evidence,” in the belief that a witch could send her double, or specter, out into the world to do mischief. Thus, if you were sound asleep in bed, with many witnesses, but someone reported you supposedly doing sinister things to a cow several miles away, you were guilty of witchcraft. You had no way of proving otherwise.”
As Ben Franklin was to have said when asked what kind of government the Founders had created,
“A republic, if you can keep it.”

You can never pinpoint when “human life” begins.
LikeLike
Some claim it begins upon retirement. Others when you have grandchildren.
LikeLike
This reminds me of the old Onion “point-counterpoint” column, way back from when the Onion was funny. On the left column is “Life Begins at Conception,” with an argument to that effect beneath that headline. On the right column is “Life Begins at 40!” with its own supporting argument.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter when life begins. That’s just a distraction since it can never be agreed on. The issue is that no human can be compelled to physically support another human being, even at the cost of that human’s life, even if that human is one’s own child
LikeLike
Well, parents can be thrown in jail for neglecting their children.
LikeLike
Not for refusal to allow their child to be physically dependent on their body. You can’t even be forced to donate blood.
LikeLike
That’s fair, although I think this line of argument is also fairly arbitrary. The idea that someone can’t be compelled to “physically support another human being” is a statement of values, not a statement of fact. Because that’s exactly what anti-abortion laws compel women to do.
LikeLike
Which is why anti-abortion laws should be illegal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agree.
LikeLike
It is simply false that one cannot be compelled to support another human being. Parents are compelled to support their children. Duh. And if they don’t despite being able to do so, they can be arrested and sent to jail and perhaps even prison.
LikeLike
I think she meant to use one’s own body to support another human being.
LikeLike
Well, that’s what’s at issue, isn’t it? Many state legislators don’t agree. It’s like writing, that “one cannot be compelled to refrain from putting psychoactive substances into one’s body.” Well, in fact, yes, in many places, one can be and is so compelled.
LikeLike
People can’t simply wave a wand and make all the world operate according to one’s own rules. That’s why the comment didn’t make sense and why we need federal legislation to protect the right to choose throughout the United States.
LikeLike
No, I agree. In my caveman view, rights exist only insofar as they have been defined by institutions backed by the coercive power to enforce them.
I’m ambivalent about federal legislation given how narrow the Senate majorities are these days. My fear is that a federal law enshrining Roe v. Wade just returns us to the days when the right wing uses the abortion issue as a wedge, as each federal election would come with the promise of overturning the federal abortion law. I’m still hopeful (and encouraged so far) that putting this issue squarely in the states will take some of that load off the national elections and also force state republicans parties to own the consequences of draconian abortion laws that their own constituents don’t want.
LikeLike
Not what I see happening.
LikeLike
How much clearer can I make this? Physically. As in, with one’s own body. You can’t be compelled to donate a kidney or even blood even if the person will die, even if it’s your own kid. Thought that was clear, but….
LikeLike
Sorry you don’t understand that the statement you originally mad is ambiguous. I oppose restriction on abortion before the end of the 2nd trimester and after that believe that they should be performed only for the health of the mother. I believe this to be a science-based position. See my notes elsewhere on this thread for explanation. I think that you made and make a lousy argument and that those of us who wish to maintain a woman’s right to choose need to do that based on a rational scientific argument about sentience.
LikeLike
The phrase “to support someone else physically” can mean “to support them with one’s own body (the less usual meaning) or to support their physical well-being (the usual meaning). So, you stated your argument poorly.
LikeLike
You’ve changed your argument. And, ofc, rightwingers don’t accept that this isn’t a special case because the one is dependent on the other as a matter of biology.
LikeLike
No, that was the argument all along. Sorry you didn’t understand it.
LikeLike
You write, “The issue is that no human can be compelled to physically support another human being.”
Feeding a child, making sure that he or she has shelter and clothes and shoes and eyeglasses and immunizations and so on–these are all “physical support,” and parents are “compelled” to offer that support.
LikeLike
Sorry I didn’t realize I had to spell it out so specifically for you.
LikeLike
I didn’t realize you opposed abortion, Bob. Or I’m not sure why you’re compelled to argue this point. There is no other circumstance in which a person is forced to use their body for the benefit of another person at substantial (or even minimal) risk to themself. It’s called bodily integrity.
LikeLike
I do support abortion. See my notes, above.
LikeLike
Then you’d best give up the life argument. You’re going to lose. The fetus is clearly alive. It grows, moves, feeds, excretes, and respirates – life by any definition. It’s also clearly human life – it’s not an amoeba or a frog or a lion. And it’s clearly a separate entity – it has its own DNA.
The only valid argument for abortion rests on bodily autonomy. No one can be forced to use their body to sustain the life of another that is not independently viable. That precedent is dangerous. Sustaining another life comes at a cost to one’s own life, including the possibility of death. The independently viable life has to come first.
Anyway, I won’t respond further. Have fun being pedantic.
LikeLike
I did not make a “life argument.” I made an argument from capability for human sentience. I think you respond without having read or thought about what you are responding to. At least that is what you have done here several times.
LikeLike
Religious ethics advocates whose religion teaches them ethical absolutes have trouble with shades of gray that life gives you. They do not like to give up power to those whose opinions differ from their own. Abolitionists before the civil war were willing to accept terrorism on behalf of slaves (John Brown’s raids). Pro-slavery apologists were willing to use religion to justify holding the power slavery gave them, and willing to kill to keep that power.
There is a class of ethical decisions that must be left to the individual in order to preserve liberty. We seem to disagree what these individual liberties are. Big time.
LikeLike
Religious doctrine should not be the basis of laws. Roe vs Wade offered “choice,” kept religion out of the decision and covered all the bases as it gave women the right to decide for themselves in consultation with their medical service provider. Nobody was forcing any women to get an abortion ever under choice. Now states and courts are debating when life begins in order to impose a particular religious belief on all women regardless of their particular religious affiliation including those with no religious belief at all. Shouldn’t women be given the choice in a secular society that values the rights of all its members free from religious interpretation? The red state laws are backward and upside down.
LikeLike
One of the contradictions of our times: families need “choice” to take public funds to private schools, but women should have no choice if they want an abortion, even if they were raped or too young to consent.
LikeLike
Hi Diane,
I am an educator and a long time reader and admirer of yours. Thank you for your attention to so many critical issues.
Regarding the rights of women to have control over their bodies, most people don’t understand that the Equal Rights Amendment should right now be providing women this freedom, as well as equal pay, and many other protections. Few Americans know that it was ratified by the requisite number of states in 2020, and therefore should have been recognized as law since 2022. It has not been entered into the National Archives and recognized as the 28th Amendment due to the obstruction of the previous president and his attorney general, and in fact now the obstruction of President Biden who just needs to tell the National Archivist to formally enter it into the Constitution. However, according to the Constitution it became law two years after it was ratified by the 38th state.
My husband and I are co-producers of the documentary film by Kamala Lopez, > Equal Means Equal (Equal Means Equal https://equalmeansequal.com/) , that > was the catalyst for the movement that acheived the last three > ratifications. Now she has launched her “Final Impact” campaign (Final > Impact https://finalimpact.org/) to get President Biden to “Make the > Call” to the National Archivist so that women’s rights are finally > recognized as equal in this country.
I would be happy to speak with you and connect you with Kamala Lopez any time if you would like to know more about this.
Thank you so much for all of your work on behalf of children and teachers, and for all of your important highlighting of the critical issues of our country and our world at this time.
Best,
Judith Scheuer JEScheuer@gmail.com
LikeLike
Thank you, Judith. As a Californian, you should get in touch with VP Harris to champion the issue. Now is the time.
LikeLike
The Texas Court says that the state has an interest in protecting all life from conception. What is the state interest between conception and birth?
LikeLike
To continue implementing the regressive xtian theocracy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The claim is that the state constitution gives the state the power to protect human life and that fetuses are human life. The state has interest in exercising its powers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What did the court say the interest was?
LikeLike
According to that logic red states should also oppose the death penalty, and they should expand Medicaid so fewer people needlessly die. The reality is that their position is not so much about valuing life as it is about control.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A biological female adult human body capable of getting pregnant (as early as 9 years old in a few cases) has about 17 Trillion cells.
At 25, when her brain reaches its mature-adult state of development, she will have about 28 trillion cells making up her body.
At conception, the possible future human in that young, biological woman’s womb, if those few cells continue to increase and survive to birth, about nine months later, has only ONE cell. About 30 hours later, there are TWO cells.
The biological woman carrying that two cell creature 30 hours after conception still has 17 to 28 trillion cells in their body.
Still, that pregnant woman has about 86 billion neurons, or cells, in their human brain compared to that day old, one cell thing growing inside of them that won’t have a brain capable of consciousness until:
“We conclude (tentatively) that a fetus becomes conscious at about 30 to 35 weeks after conception; an answer based on a careful analysis of EEG readings at various stages of cortical development. Finally, we survey the possible ethical ramifications of our answer.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11653234/#:~:text=We%20conclude%20(tentatively)%20that%20a,ethical%20ramifications%20of%20our%20answer.
LikeLike
Thanks, Lloyd. I posted that link as well a few months back in response to people who were saying, here, that this question about whether a fetus is a person or when it becomes a person “doesn’t have a scientific answer.” It emphatically DOES have such an answer, and the answer is, at between 30 and 35 weeks. That’s between approximately 6.9 months and 8 months.
LikeLike
I think my position was (and is) that you can’t define when “human life” appears because that depends on a threshold debate about what “human life” is, and I don’t think that debate is one that can be conclusively settled. For starters, I don’t think it’s clear that “human life” is coextensive with personhood.
LikeLike
Well, a preconscious thing is not human life, and a conscious human is. That seems to me obvious, true prima facie. Read the article that Lloyd and I posted.
LikeLike
I will. Not sure I agree it’s clear that something preconscious can’t be “human life.” I think I get the argument and it has its logic, but it still seems to be a little arbitrary.
LikeLike
I cannot for the life of me figure out in what sense this distinction could be called “arbitrary.” It is a fact of nature. And, of course, it is tautological that nothing that is lacking consciousness thinks of itself as a human being or has any concept of “human being” or “personhood” or “self.”
LikeLike
What is “consciousness” in this context? Self-awareness?
LikeLike
capacity for self-awareness
LikeLike
Ok. Humans have the capacity for self-awareness, and a lot of other animals do. But not every animal does. And maybe rather than analyzing “human life” with emphasis on that one aspect of our being, we should look at from a perspective that is shared more broadly among living animals. So think of an animal that does not have the capacity for self-awareness. That itself is probably a long discussion, both philosophical and biological, and I assume there is a lot of debate about which animals do and don’t have the capacity for self-awareness. But let’s just assume there are some animals that don’t have that capacity, and for these purposes, assume it’s a gecko. A gecko walking around on earth is lizard life. A newly born gecko is lizard life. At what point in the egg is a gecko fetus “lizard life”?
LikeLike
I think that we can say that while they are related, human self awareness is not gecko self awareness, and what we are talking about here is the development of the necessary machinery in the brain for human, not gecko, self awareness.
LikeLike
Meaning that the machinery for self-awareness is in place
LikeLike
👍
LikeLike
But I despair of ever convincing anyone of anything. I sometimes think I should leave off and go find a hermitage.
LikeLike
lol, don’t despair, I’m grateful for your efforts. I’m typing this while walking to the office and I’m about there, so I’m probably going offline for a bit.
LikeLike
Knock ’em dead, Mr. Flerp!
LikeLike
Interestingly, in speaking to some high school girls about this issue, they said that if it came down to their life or the baby’s life, “that baby is going.”
LikeLike
So, if I’m in a coma, am I self-aware? And if not, am I still a human being?
LikeLike
I’m not being a wise-ass with this question. I was thinking in terms of what we as a society believe we can do with comatose people or people that may not be self-aware as defined.
LikeLike
The criterion is not awareness but capacity for awareness, and there are many cases of comatose people waking.
LikeLike
THE NINTH AMENDMENT: Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that there is a constitutional right to live in a racially mixed marriage as does Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. But he has that right because the 9th Amendment says that basic rights, like the right to interracial marriage and the right to abortion, do not have to be stated in the Constitution in order to be constitutional rights because The Ninth Amendment says: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The current Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion not only violates the 9th Amendment, it violates the religious rights of many citizens. The ruling is supportive of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church to which the six majority Justices belong.
The Bible gives commandments on a very, very long list of more than 600 laws on everything from divorce to gluttony or stealing — yet the Bible says nothing about abortion. Why is that? If abortion was even as important as gluttony and stealing, it would have been mentioned in the Bible.
Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, which includes the 10 Commandments, NONE — not one — comments on abortion. In fact, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25 clearly shows that causing the abortion of a fetus is NOT MURDER. Exodus 21:22-25 says that if a woman’s fetus is aborted as the result of an altercation with a man, the man who caused abortion should only pay a fine that is to be determined by the woman’s husband, but if the woman dies, the man is to be executed: “If a man strives with a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet there is no harm to the woman, he shall be punished according to what the woman’s husband determines and he shall pay as the judges determine.” So, the abortion is treated like the destruction of property, not murder.
There are Christian denominations that allow abortion in most instances; these Christian denominations include the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church USA. The United Methodist Church and Episcopal churches allow abortion in cases of medical necessity, and the United Universalist Association also allows abortion.
Most of the opposition to abortion comes from fundamentalist and evangelical Christians who believe that a full-fledged human being is created at the instant of conception. But that is a religious BELIEF and religious beliefs cannot be recognized by the government under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of our Constitution. Moreover, the belief that a fetus is a human person, complete with a soul, is a Christian interpretation of the Jewish Bible — the Old Testament. But, Jewish scholars whose ancestors wrote the Old Testament and who know best what the words mean say that is a wrong interpretation of their writings.
Christians largely base their view that a fetus is a complete human being and that abortion is murder on the Jewish Bible’s Psalm 139: “You knit me together in my mother’s womb…You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born.”
But who better to translate the accurate meaning of Psalm 139 than the Jews who wrote it? And Jewish scholars point out that Psalm 139 merely describes the development of a fetus and does not mean that the fetus has a soul and is a person. In fact, the Jewish Talmud explains that for the first 40 days of a woman’s pregnancy, the fetus is considered “mere fluid” and is just part of the mother’s body, like an appendix or liver. Only after the fetus’s head emerges from the womb at birth and takes a breath is the baby considered a “nefesh” – Hebrew for “soul” or “spirit” – a human person.
The idea that full-fledged human life begins at conception is a sectarian religious belief that isn’t held by the majority of religions, including a number of mainstream Christian religions.
Therefore, any local, state, or federal law that holds that full-fledged human life begins at conception is unconstitutional because such laws are made in recognition of an establishment of religion and violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
THE COURT BENDS THE FACTS: The University of London scientist whose research is cited by the Supreme Court in its ruling to take away abortion rights says that his research has been misrepresented by Justice Alito and the Supreme Court’s activist conservative majority. Neuroscientist Dr. Giandomenico Iannetti says that the Court is ABSOLUTELY WRONG to say that his research shows that a fetus can feel pain when it is less than 24 weeks of development. “My results by no means imply that,” Dr. Iannetti declares. “I feel they were used in a clever way to make a point.” And Dr. John Wood, molecular neurobiologist at the University, points out that all serious scientists agree that a fetus can NOT feel pain until at least 24 weeks “and perhaps not even then.” Dr. Vania Apkarian, head of the Center for Transitional Pain Research at Chicago’s Feinberg School of Medicine, says that the medical evidence on a fetus not feeling pain before 24 weeks or longer has not changed in 50 years and remains “irrefutable”.
LIFE OF WOE: In its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling upholding abortion rights, the Supreme Court set “viability” — the point at which a fetus can survive outside of the womb — as the dividing line after which some restrictions can be imposed on abortion rights. The pending ruling by current activist conservative majority on the Court will do away with the concept of viability, yet even with all of today’s medical miracles to keep a prematurely born or aborted fetus alive, of all the tens of thousands of cases, 90% OF FETUSES BORN AT 22 WEEKS DO NOT SURVIVE, and data shows that the majority of those that manage to be kept alive live the rest of their lives with a combination of BIRTH DEFECTS that include mental impairment, cerebral palsy, breathing problems, blindness, deafness, and other disorders that often require frequent hospitalizations during their lifetimes.
LikeLike
Your moment of not-Zen:
(1) Facebook
LikeLike