Damn computer.
What’s your evidence that we’re less responsible? Do you have any stats for rates of STD infection or other supporting info, or are you just going by the rate of out of wedlock pregnancies? Keep in mind that a hundred years ago, women still often got married in their early teens, and so spent their entire reproductive lives married. They also breast-fed, which tended to space the babies out a couple of years.
According to The Story the Soldiers Wouldn’t Tell: Sex in the Civil War by Dr. Thomas P. Lowry MD, there are more than 100 different plants in North America that can be used to induce abortion. The bark of the Hawthorne tree, brewed into a tea, has a safety factor similar to modern outpatient surgical procedures.
You goona uproot half of North America to stop abortions? :dubious:
What kind of research? We already have very effective and affordable methods of birth control; the main problem is people who don’t use them. And I doubt people would get more responsible. I have never met a woman who enjoyed getting an abortion; this idea that there are a bunch of women out there who are using abortions as a deliberate substitute for birth-control is absurd.
The “fetuses are babies” comment was meant, I suspect, to convey the idea that fetuses are equivalent to babies in the amount of human rights accorded them. Assuming you knew the intent of the statement, you then said that it is logical to afford the same level of rights to a sperm? Can you even remotely support that logically, as you say you can? Please support the contention that the difference between a late term fetus in the womb and a 10 seconds old baby still attached to the mother by the umbilical cord is substantially equivalent to the difference between a sperm and a zygote. Please consider the DNA present in each while you do so. Also please explain how the “location” is more important than a complete set of DNA. Also, please explain if the key to your reasoning is an objective definition of the beginning of human life without regard to consequences, or if you reasoning is keyed on the consequences to the convenience of already existing human life.
Including you? Whether or not you should be killed is “just a value judgment”??? I’m not sure if that statement has any content, but if it does, it seems to be flippant content. Was it really your intent to play down the value of your own life?
Because it is useful to do so? Are we slaves to human subclass terminology to such an extent that we cannot accord equal rights to plural subclasses having different names?
Was that supposed to be funny? I got a good laugh out of it-- especially the “of course” part. I’m supportive of keeping early term abortion legal, but I guess I just don’t see the “reactionary conspiracy”. Must be those Euro-centric post-patriarchal reactionaries I keep hearing about. Man, those guys are everywhere!
On the rape thing, I can’t take any pro-lifer seriously if they support abortion in the case of rape or incest. Il Topo put it well, above, so I won’t repeat his arguments.
Gee, I wonder who you are talking to. I’m sure all the people who call themselves “anti-choice” are listening.
In all seriousness, I truly could care less about what women do sexually as long as they aren’t killing people afterwards.
It helps to demonize those with whom you disagree. It prevents you from having to engage in serious, thoughtful discussion. I’ll tell you what, I’ll assume you honestly think it is OK to terminate a fetus because it is not a human life with rights, and I’ll call you “pro-choice”, if you call me “pro-life” or even “anti-abortion” and assume I just don’t want to kill people. Anti-choice is a ridiculous term. I don’t have a choice to kill you. The term is not descriptive.
Oh, and if you think I have extra baggage that goes along with my anti-abortion position, well, let’s talk about that. You may be surprised, however.
Please elaborate. I am uninformed regarding these successful approaches, and I wish to learn about them to see if they are usable.
Personally, I think that the Catholic Church and other pro-life movements should invest serious efforts and funds into helping out of wedlock mothers take their pregancies to term, and to combat the stigma attached thereto. I know they do the first part a little, but they should do it more. The second part is a balancing act. You don’t want to encourage out of wedlock pregnancies; you just want them to know that it is better to carry them to term than to abort. As a parent, I face that balancing act in many circumstances. How do I keep my children from drinking too much, but encourage them when they do so to call me so that I can give them a ride home so they don’t get killed or kill others?
How fortunate you are that nobody is likely to take control over your body, John Mace. I don’t find it vaguely funny that somebody is trying to take control of mine away from me.
That you choose to ignore the ideology of the main forces behind the anti-choice movement is so, so droll, so knowing, so, so clever.
il Tropo
I wonder why you should imagine that I would care whether “anti-choice” people are listening?
In all seriousness, I truly could care less about your feelings about women’s sexuality, merely about the outcomes that you will create and the attitudes of the forces that you represent.
As to ‘demonizing’ (from somebody who talks about killing people - hey prevents you from having to engage . . . .), I’m merely drawing attention to the nature of the groups behind ‘anti-choice’.
I’m sure that you are quite capable of looking into ‘sex education’ yourself.
Hi CCL,
Good question. I don’t have any. Perhaps I will find the time to look for some later (e.g., tonight). I just wanted to see whether or not we would arrive at the same conclusions if we started with the same inferences, thus, my comment was phrased in question form with both possibilities offered, and an admission that I may very well be wrong if my assumption is incorrect. You want me to support my assumption, which is very fair. If evidence (whatever that may be) shows that we are “less responsible” now (whatever that means), are you (or other pro-choicers) prepared to admit that we could always go back to being “more responsible”?
Wow, Candida, what a hostile answer.
I am quite femal, so I guess I have as much stake in this issue as you do. Does that give my opinion more credibility. Does the fact that John Mace is male make his opinion less valid?
I started this OP, so you know that I consider myself pro-life. You may think you know something about me because of that. But don’t assume.
I’m a hard-core Democrat. Long term member of the Sierra Club. Haven’t been near a church in years.
I think the ‘main force behind’ the pro-life movement is people who sincerely believe that it is wrong to kill an unborn baby.
And the term ‘anti-choice’ is just wrong. I’m in favor of lots of choices. Choose your hair color, the gender of your lover, the kind of job you want. But I think it’s wrong to choose to destroy the environment, to gleefully inflict pain on animls, and to abort a baby.
Yes, Candrida? 
You don’t care about my feelings, but you care about my attitudes?
But the nature of what you describe is foreign to me, an “anti-choicer.” If you really want to beat the pro-life movement, perhaps you should form a more accurate picture of them so that your remarks would be more on target. As it is, we hear what you say, and smile and wonder that you know so little about our motivations. Why avoid addressing our motivations head on? I suspect you will be able to maintain some of your hatred for us if you truly knew us. We do want to take a convenience away from you, after all.
autz
The OP was about outcomes, I dealt with outcomes.
I’m interested in the political purposes of the anti-choice movement and the likely outcomes.
I’m not interested at all in people rehearsing their particular/peculiar moral certainties.
Candida:
OK, it wasn’t very nice of me to make fun of your post-- I apologize. Let me rephrase:
I think we’re on the same side of this issue. You might want to reconsider the rhetoric of claiming that anti-abortion folks are part of some vast conspiracy against women. Heck, many anti-abortion folks are women. If you’ve never seen the movie “Citizen Ruth” you should rent it. It does a good job of showing how the extremes of both sides of this argument do as much harm as good to their “cause”.
Outcomes? Millions of lives saved?
How do you give human rights to something that’s not alive?
My point is that it’s completely illogical. But how can you say a fetus, which is the name of the stage of development starting at 9 weeks and continuing until birth, IS a baby? You can’t tell precisely when an embryo becomes a fetus, so how can you abort if the pregnancy appears to be, say, 8 weeks into development? There needs to be a logical distinction at the very least, and somebody who says fetuses are babies isn’t making one.
I didn’t say it was. See above. I’m asking where you draw the line - if a fetus is a baby, how is a zygote or embryo not a baby? Explain to me the logic of saying one “is” a baby and the other “isn’t.”
I wish I knew what this meant, it’d be much easier to answer. What is the objective definition of human life? I admit there’s not much difference between a fetus at, say, 8 1/2 months and a baby just out of the womb. But you know what? Birth is the best distinction we have, and it makes more sense than nine weeks, trimesters, or amounts of DNA present in a fetus. To say it’s just a “convenient” definition is silly. Birth by definition is the beginning of life. A fetus has, you might argue, the POTENTIAL to become a human being, but so does a sperm. Potential isn’t enough, you need something that makes sense. That’s why babies are those that have ALREADY been born, not those close enough for political lobbies to make a convenient case.
Actually, that’s exactly the answer. A fetus is a stage of pregnancy lasting from 9 weeks until birth. After birth, what you have is a baby. That’s why there are different terms for them: they’re not the same thing. People who say a fetus is a baby, or an unborn baby, are just playing games with the words.
il Tropo
I said the “attitudes of the forces you represent”, if you notice.
Now, I’m sure it’s all very nice for you to represent yourself as some kind of paragon - to me it’s merely the smile on the face of the tiger.
As to discussion, I’m merely interested in the political attitudes of the forces involved and likely outcomes.
As to you as individuals? Why on earth should I be interested in anti-choice campaigners as people?
I agree with that. It seems sometimes that each side preaches to their own choir more than they seek to convince the other side. It is such an inflammatory issue, it takes great care not to be offensive to the other side, and once one side slips (intentionally or accidentally), the pile on begins and there is no chance for recovery into reasonable debate.
The first step is to realize that there are few ill-intentioned people in the world. Once you realize that everyone’s viewpoint appears beneficial to them, then you can go about trying to figure out why it is beneficial to them, then you will know what makes them tick, then you will know how to effectively engage them in debate, and then your opinion of them will be improved (regardless of your disagreement with them), and they will sense that in your delivery.
My comments are directed to both sides. I’m as guilty as the next person.
I used to disparage the intentions of my political opponents. Then I realized they are decent people who just see things differently. Life is nicer that way.
Don’t get me wrong, there are intrinsically evil, holocaustic, sheet-wearing Nazis out there who we all need to be wary of, but I believe they are the exception rather than the rule, at least in the average voter supporting a mainstream political party.
John Mace
Yes, that’s all very well and good but, without the Christian Right and the Catholic Church, where would anti-choice be?
About as insignificant as in places like the UK would be my guess.
I don’t think the intent of the original comment was to argue strict definitions of development stages in a medical or scientific sense (fetus = baby), but rather, to state that the difference between those stages is so insubstantial as to make it reasonable to believe that both fetus and baby are alive and therefore deserving of the same set of rights.
Indeed, there is little distinction between fetuses and babies in my mind (other than location, which seems a silly way to define life), and between zygotes and fetuses. But, there is a huge distinction between a zygote and a sperm. To start with, one has a unique and complete set of human DNA, and the other does not; and one merely requires nourishment and shelter to develop into an adult human, and the other (the sperm) is as much an “adult” as it ever will be. That is a logical distinction, is it not?
How did I do? TEST: Do they all have a complete and theretofore unique set of human DNA? Can they grow into an adult with no further DNA changes? Then they are all “alive” and “human” and therefore deserving of rights. (We can discuss clones later; let’s not complicate the issue now.)
I think birth is the second best. First best is a cell with a unique and complete set of human DNA capable of development into an adult with that DNA.
I agree regarding the arbitrary development stages or time periods which are not tied to structural differences in the organism in question. The DNA generally remains the same once conception occurs, so it is a pretty stable indicator, and in my humble opinion, a better distinction than location of a fetus/baby.
I only say that because I have debated pro-choicers before, and they were never willing to entertain (not accept, mind you, but merely entertain) a definition of the beginning of life which was too early for the mother in question to notice she is pregnant and schedule action (e.g., abortion) to rectify the situation. I have taken from that that the key driving force for pro-choicer’s is convenience of the mother, not an honest and objective definition of the beginning of life, regardless of the consequences for the mother.
Why didn’t you say so?! 
Actually, that is precisely the issue I am trying to debate: When does life begin. What issue are you trying to debate?
For me, there is no such thing as “potential to become a human being.” Either one is, or one isn’t. It’s kind of like being almost pregnant. A sperm has no potential by itself. It has half the DNA required to be a human. It must be torn apart and restructured with biological matter from another individual organism before anything of interest happens. At that point, the new “thing”, with a full set of unique, heretofore unknown human DNA exists. At that point, we have a human, not a potential human.
Actually, they are using shorthand to describe something similar to that which I just described above. We can argue definitions, but that won’t really get us anywhere.
Should I feel guilty that I enjoy debating such a serious topic so much?