Actually, even this is not an accurate expression of James' belief, as he has defended it. The most accurate way of restating James' belief, as James has expressed it, is that he believes the state has a fundamental duty to prevent a pregnant woman from taking any positive action to kill a fetus. This is an important distinction, because a fetus can be killed through inaction as well. If a woman does not seek or receive appropriate prenatal care because she lacks the money to pay for it, and the fetus she is carrying dies in utero, then the fetus, in my view, has been killed. You could argue that it is still the woman who has killed her fetus, but if she does not have the economic resources to properly care for her fetus, and her government, which is supposed to represent her interests, does not provide and ensure her access to those resources, then said government is complicit in the death of the fetus and has, in truth, killed the fetus -- or helped to kill it.

Sean, you can consider it anything you want, but it's a biological fact that a fertilized egg is not a pregnancy. Pregnancy does not occur until the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine wall.

For me, it does not matter to my support for abortion rights whether the sperm and egg are merely fertilized, or whether the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus: I support a woman's right to use contraception AND emergency contraception AND to have an abortion. But the fact remains that if a woman uses Plan B and thereby prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall, she has NOT ended a pregnancy, because there WAS no pregnancy. This is a medical, biological reality you cannot change, Sean. A fertilized egg cannot, and will never, develop into anything. Development can only take place after implantation. Period, end of story.

Being murdered or being killed? Murder is a legal term. Abortion is not murder as long as abortion is legal. So it would be more accurate to say that you believe the state has a fundamental duty to prevent people from being killed.

Even more accurately, in the context of pregnancy and abortion, you believe that the state has a fundamental duty to prevent fetuses from being killed. You do not believe the state has a fundamental duty to prevent people from being killed -- because the word people is generally understood to include human life from birth onward and not just fetal life.

I support a woman's right to determine whether to have babies but not her right to kill her baby.

Sorry, James, you can't have it both ways. If you oppose a woman's right to have an abortion, you do not support a woman's right to determine whether to have babies.

No worship required at all.

Until I see some scrap of consistency in the positions of people like you and James, I will continue in my absolute, unshakeable conviction that both of you are motivated MORE by revulsion toward the idea that a woman has BOTH the right to decide when and whether to have sex AND the right to decide when and whether to have a baby, than you are by concern for the safety of fetuses or the belief that government has a legitimate interest in protecting the safety of fetuses.

I don't believe in socialism yet I believe the state has a fundamental duty to prevent people from being murdered. That's not inconsistent.

I support a woman's right to determine whether to have babies but not her right to kill her baby.
I think contraception should be legal. I'm more squeamish about Plan B than about traditional forms that aim at preventing fertilization but still think it should be available.

No "fetus-worshiping" required.

Is there anything logically or legally consistent in saying, "We are going to protect your (the fetus) safety by criminalizing the act of intentionally ending a pregnancy; however, we are not going to protect your (the fetus)safety by making certain that your mother gets adequate prenatal care and is adequately nourished even if she cannot pay for prenatal care or food"?

We are not talking about giving someone a room for the night here. We are talking about protecting the safety of a fetus by protecting the fetus's source of life -- the pregnant woman -- and/or by ensuring the pregnant woman's access to fee-based medical care and fee-based food to eat, without either of which the fetus will not be safe. There is nothing "indirect" about this protection. It is quite direct.

If, as James wrote, the "government has a legitimate role in protecting the safety of fetuses beyond a certain stage," then logical and legal consistency would dictate that the government has a legitimate role in protecting the safety of the women inside whose bodies the fetuses reside -- because we care about the fetuses, and if the woman is malnourished or sick or cannot afford prenatal care, that could harm the fetus.

I would also argue that if the government has a legitimate role in protecting the safety of fetuses "beyond a certain stage," that legitimate role does not end at birth, but rather extends into the life of the fetus as a baby and a child. Where is the logic in positing a government interest in "protecting the safety of fetuses beyond a certain stage" while denying the existence of a government interest in protecting the safety of infants, babies, toddlers, preschoolers, children, and teenagers?

You seem to believe that the government should step in to "protect" a fetus from being killed via abortion, but should not step in to prevent an infant from being killed by a rat attacking her while she sleeps, or by the ceiling falling on her head, because her mother has no money to pay for safe housing.

Until I see some scrap of consistency in the positions of people like you and James, I will continue in my absolute, unshakeable conviction that both of you are motivated MORE by revulsion toward the idea that a woman has BOTH the right to decide when and whether to have sex AND the right to decide when and whether to have a baby, than you are by concern for the safety of fetuses or the belief that government has a legitimate interest in protecting the safety of fetuses.

Emergency contraceptives are not effective if the woman is already pregnant. Plan B® is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.

They're defining pregnancy, then, as beginning only at or after the beginning of "the process of implantation." I'm not suggesting that they're being deliberately misleading, and I would in fact agree that if this is accurate, then that's a significant difference between Plan B and RU-486 (a/k/a Mifeprex® or mifepristone, the so-called "morning after abortion pill"). But more common parlance, and at least some dictionaries, consider "pregnancy" as beginning with conception, not implantation.

jeff b: You may have been referring to our host instead of, or as well as, me when you used the phrase "ignorant jackass." If so, that's all the more reason to chill out a bit, since it's marginally less inappropriate to gratuitously insult another commenter than it is to insult our common host.

But there's nothing logically or legally inconsistent in saying, "We're going to protect you from murder (by criminalizing the acts of those who'd murder you), but we're not going to give you a free room tonight (even if that refusal puts you at a greater indirect risk of perishing)."

Quite so.

Kathy: The law can recognize that something (someone) is a "person" for purposes of being protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States without also being required to conclude, in law or logic, that — as you seem to be arguing — all persons are legally entitled to be guaranteed any particular benefits at government expense. Free and easy everything would be "nice," whether for new mothers or anyone else, and you can make good arguments that, as a matter of policy, the laws ought to be written to provide that. But there's nothing logically or legally inconsistent in saying, "We're going to protect you from murder (by criminalizing the acts of those who'd murder you), but we're not going to give you a free room tonight (even if that refusal puts you at a greater indirect risk of perishing)."

James, please confirm for me then that you do support free medical care (both prenatal and psychotherapy if needed) as well as free and easy access to all services a low-income pregnant woman might need to assure her baby's safety (food for the mother comes to mind, and possibly other services such as safe emergency housing).

Uhhh, what unborn girl, Sean? I thought you fetus-worshippers believed that life begins at conception. So no conception, no life, right? Or are you now saying that life begins before conception?

If people are going to get their panties in a twist over non-implanted fertilized
eggs, they are going to be in for a big shock when they find out that millions of
fertilized-but-not-implanted eggs get flushed down toilets every day. Most
fertilized eggs never implant.

And many grieve when they realize they've miscarried. Millions die of starvation with little grief outside of close acquaintances. The Iraqi civilian casualties are barely remembered in the U.S. compared to each individual U.S. troop death. This demonstrates the flawed world we fallen people live in as well as need to ration sympathy to those most visible to us.

Charmaine on a previous NBC Plan B debate In a front page, above the fold story The Washington Post is pushing Plan B. In Plan B Use Surges, And So Does Controversy, byline Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer,......