Anyone know what a round of mifepristone is going to cost? It could be astronomical.
Dr. J
Speaking of if-then logic I don’t follow.
How does the fact that life beginning at conception (something even pro-choicers will concede) equate with abortion being wrong?
Or are you confusing fully human life with biological life in general?
But I would be willing to wager that the pro-lifers intelligent enough to do so would not break the law by hacking an online store
i’ve not conceded such, but lets say i do:
if that constitutes life, then the unfertilized egg also constitutes life. therefore, any egg that is not utilized [ie, fertilized, and given birth to] is aborted/murdered.
I’m prolifer, and I’m not going to argue that an embryo isn’t alive.
From the dictionary:
an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
The only one you might argue is reproduction, but the single fertilised cell is continuously dividing, therefore it is reproducing itself in an asexual fashion.
Granted, this is a long way from what we consider to be human life, however.
err. that was a typo.
It doesn’t help that pro-life is kinda confusing. I happen to be very pro-life, especially human life, as a humanist but feel that being pro-choice, and humans having access to abortions is an important part of that.
There are those who believe that every sperm cell is sacred. Not only are they against abortion, they are also against masturbation.
I heard on the news this a.m. that a single treatment using RU-486 would run about $300. About the same as the cost of a surgical abortion within the first trimester.
I wasn’t going to nitpick this, but no one else said anything. Destroying life is not called murder or abortion. Usually, it is called killing. Abortion and murder are specific kinds of killing, one pertaining to destroying life still in the womb, the other to humans. For your sentence to be true, you would have to prove that embryos are human, which of course is the sticking point in the debate.
PeeQueue
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PeeQueue *
**
actually, most pro choice folks i know DO consider at least the fetus (if not the embryo) to be a unique human life (as opposed to what else…basset hound life?) They part with the pro life community in granting “personhood” status, and thus- legal protection, based on their own set of “criteria” .
…sentience…dependence…“viability” …etc
Thats where the debate “usually” seems to be …
Jeff_42 said
Huh?
RU486 won’t replace standard abortions because some women will still choose to terminate their pregnancy after the five-week window in which the drug is effective.
Current abortion procedures are much, much more traumatic on women than RU486. A very small percentage of women who take RU486 experence severe cramping and bleeding problems, but the vast majority do not.
There is much less potential for complications, trauma and long-term reproductive damage using RU486 than there is with current abortion techniques. This isn’t speculation; it’s medical fact. Remember, this drug has been used for years for this purpose in Europe, by about half a million women.
That is the main reason why I think both abortion rights advocates and opponents should applaud the FDA’s approval. It allows women who are going to terminate their pregnancy anyway to avoid having to undergo an invasive, surgical procedure, and it places them at much less risk. Regardless of how you feel about the choice, if it is safer for these women, that’s a good thing. Right? (Show us just how Pro-Life you really are, Pro-Lifers, and say, “Right.”)
Perhaps I’m getting cynical in my old age, but I wonder if part of the hue and cry against this drug on the Anti-Choice side has to do with the fact that a glop of tissue smaller than a pea isn’t as shocking on posters as a human-looking fetus.
nah, that can’t be it. 
or perhaps the hue and cry is that the “pro life” (oops…guess that would be ‘anti choice’ side) side thinks that the number of abortions will increase as a result of the pill…
If pro life folks feel that x# of abortions are a bad thing…then my guess is that they feel x+RU486# of abortions is a worse thing…
glob of tissue eh…uh huh
We got your barbed “anti-choice” witticism the first time you made it a couple of posts back.
That being said, anti-choice, while designed to provoke a certain reaction in the audience, is literally true. “pro-life” forces do not wish people to have the choice to have an abortion.
For that matter, “pro-life” is not a label which one could apply soley to those against abortions (or anti-abortionists).
Many, if not most, pro-choice people are pro-life. They want to maximize the quality of the human life that already exists on this planet, and promote safe procreation in a family environment that’s prepared to raise the resulting children.
Now, the “pro-abortion” label is about as accurate as the “pro-life” label, I’d say.
It applies in that those who are pro-choice want abortions to exist, but it has the appearance of making abortion the sole goal of these evil liberals (or libertarians).
Planned Parenthood is not a euphemism. It is about having children as well as preventing them, and having them in the best way possible.
Wow, this is getting tiresome, thread after thread, to see this offered up–this “the pro-life movement is absolutely bereft of logic” canard. It is one thing to say you don’t accept the conclusion of a particular syllogism (which are all, at their foundation, axiomatic), and quite another to pretend the syllogism doesn’t exist.
I sincerely hope this will not be the cue for several posts saying “But it’s true!” until anyone so inclined peruses some of the threads from only the past several weeks. Just search under “beagledave” if you want to save some time.
Really, did you read the link I sent (from the post you quoted)? That is the best secular defense of a “pro-life” position that I have ever seen. It failed in the usual place. She claimed that potential humanity equated with full human rights.
I have yet to see any better defense of this, even in all those thread (and especially by beagledave).
Pro-choice advocates can define humanity as being about consciousness, having a mind, a brain.
What do pro-lifers use? For them humanity is somehow in potential. Since we are approaching the stage where every cell of your body could be used to grow a new individual, this could mean trouble.
I agree with a previous thread, from the attitudes of some pro-lifers (abortion is only o.k. in case of rape) it seems likely that it is about punishment for a lapse of morality, and not about a group of cells equalling a human being.
Of course I’m repetitive…much like the “anti choice” phraseology which you point out…is designed to ‘evoke a certain reaction’
I thought it would be common courtesy to refer to the opposing viewpoint by their desired terminology (this was requested, by the way, by a pro choice advocate (Satan) in another thread.)
Semantic twists can certainly flow in several directions…I don’t think that the “pro choice” position is extending any choice to the fetus…
Nor do I think that the term “pro life” refers ‘only’ to abortion (I don’t speak for all pro life folks…but it’s usually not wise to lump evrybody who holds a persuasion into one monolithic group)
I for one, was not referring to the folks in the opposing camp as “pro abortion” or “baby killers”…guess I was expecting too much from the other side…
There is no rational arguement for me not being able to kill whoever is dependent on me:) (Im pro death)
Didn’t happen that way in Europe. Probably won’t happen here.
From http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000928/ts/abortion_pill.html
So basically, the anti-choice side is wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.
Beagledave, given your strong feelings on the subject, do you think you could give a definition for us of what a human being is?
You seem to be very certain of the rights they have at least.
I have seen a good many definitions of what humanity entails from pro-choice posters, but not so many from the other side.
My own opinion is fairly firm. If dolphins or apes developed or were shown to be self-aware individuals, they would have full human rights. As it is, I think their rights are relative to the extent of their intelligence and their capacity for suffering. (suffering, not pain. even a flatworm has pain signals)