Again I don’t presume to speak for classylady, but I offered several reasons above. The most obvious one is the relative numbers involved. Like any advertising executive must do, the pro-life movement has to make decisions based on how effectively it uses its resources. There are vastly more abortions in the country than there are in vitro fertilizations. Simple math suggests that even if the distaste for both procedures is equal, the better target is the abortion clinic.
Ahhh so you were one I wanted to punch in the face for making me feel so embarrassed to go get cheap healthcare in college. Thank you for *that *experience. PP was one of the few places I felt like I could go to talk about my body and you took that away from me. Congratulations.
Not at all. Again, the question is one of intent. A woman’s journey to the abortion clinic has a clear intent. The woman and man involved in the harvesting of eggs for in vitro fertilization have the intent of implanting embryos to get pregnant. The fact that the process may possibly end with extra embryos is not their intent, but simply a side-effect of the process.
How come one is constantly the focused target of right-wing legislation (not to mention the picketers in the OP) and one is not? If they’re equal, then the law should be equal, and efforts to ban them should be equal. The fact that efforts to outlaw the two are NOT equal suggests to me that your* position is irrational, illogical, and unsupportive.
The general “you” i.e. anti-choice movement in general, not the specific “you” i.e. the Doper who knows some law stuff.
People like me? I have never protested at an abortion clinic so i would never protest at a fertility clinic. Both are wrong in my opinion but this debate is about abortion.
Wait, I just saw this. Oh, hell, fast as this thread is moving, this won’t be a dbl-post anyway …
The question is one of intent. A woman’s journey to the abortion clinic has a clear intent: to no longer be pregnant, something you’re simply incapable of understanding since you can never be such. The fact that the process may possibly end with [del]extra[/del] deceased embryos is not their intent, but simply a side-effect of the process…
This is an example of the logical converse of a statement being asserted as equivalent to the original statement.
I said that the pro-life people FAVOR the other services of the fertility clinics. You suggest I’m saying that pro-life people DISFAVOR the other services of Planned Parenthood.
If A, then B.
is not the same as:
If not A, then not B.
Let me ask the question another way, then: if this debate were being scored by ordinary debate rules, which of us do you think would be doing better?
The intent of the woman isn’t to kill a baby. The intent is to be able to live the life that not having a child will provide. Killing the fetus is incidental.
So if I want to adopt a child, and the only way I can do it is to kill a half dozen other children, that’s okay to you?
Not in front of the other liberals!
I was saying that your position is presumably based on your faith. And if your faith is correct, that is sperm+egg=soul, then fertility clinics are as guilty as abortion facilities.
This is precisely why I brought up the hypothetical of the magic embryo removing and sustaining machine, to explore your claim that what the woman sought was simply no longer being pregnant.
Since effort has to be expended on lobbying and advertising support for changes in the law, the better use is for the law that will affect the most change.
What’s wrong? The offices that provide their respective services, or the picketers who harass the offices’ clients?
This debate IS about abortion - or, specifically, the picketers who harass the women who may or may not be seeking such a procedure. But, my original question stands: what’s the difference between an embryo that’s chucked willy-nilly into a trash can, and an embryo that might soon* have state legislative backing superior to its own host?
If Rick Santorum, anti-choicers, et al. get their way. Which will, hopefully, be never.
Yes, that may be (although that’s why the magic embryo machine discussion may be of some help).
Which is why, even if we were to make abortion illegal, I would not support prosecution for women who sought abortions… because I agree they have imperfect or even non-existent criminal intent.
No, I’d prefer you not do this. The difference is that in this scenario, all the children are already alive, and I can’t think of any reason that you’d need to kill all of them to save only one.
But – if you were in the Amazon rainforest after a plane crash with four children, and you physcially couldn’t walk out with all of them, but could save one successfully, I’d certainly understand your Sophie’s Choice decision to at least save one child and leave the others to die.
The new love that dare not speak its name.
No, they’re not, because the clinic doesn’t have the means to sustain and grow an embryo. They are stuck, like a person in a coma with no chance of recovery. The clinic takes an embryo that is sustained and growing, and kills it.
I am a fiscally liberal, anti death-penalty, registered Democrat, pro-lifer who is now going to make some assumptions about you:
(1) You were born near Cleveland, OH;
(2) You never really loved your father;
(3) Your favorite color is green;
(4) You are right-handed;
(5) You have never scored above 100 on an IQ test, but believe the tests themselves to be biased;
(6) You wear a “B” cup size, have a 28" waist, and size 7 1/2 shoes;
(7) You are a masterful ping-pong player;
(8) You have never petted an iguana;
(9) You enjoy making bigoted and unwarranted assumptions about people you have never met and prefer looking at the world through your own convenient stereotypes because it beats actually paying attention to what’s around you.
(10) You own a ballpoint pen.
I’m saying that if they do favor the other services, then that should be sufficient to keep them away from PP, if it’s sufficient to keep them away from fertility clinics.
I suppose you would, if we’re judging on nitpicky bullshit, instead of actual true stuff. Of course, you are a lawyer. You want a cookie?
