Well, except the zygote is distinct from both parents in a way that both the sperm and egg aren’t. The zygote has a seperate set of DNA and genes than either parent. Of course, taking this argument too far leads to some weird conclusions when it comes to things like cloning or identical twins, but taking any argument too far can lead to weird results.
When you go past the point of conception then you are dealing with different organisms. Since there is no logical conflation in not protecting what is demonstrably not a human life (as in a separate spatiotemporal entity) the “argument” that pro-lifers have to protect sperm and ova in order to be logically consistent is a strawman. Not just any old strawman but such a pitiful and absurd strawman that to see it anywhere outside of Usenet (let alone the Straight Dope) is enough to give me a stress headache.
Please, I implore any pro-choicers who argue along these lines with any sort of conviction, drop it. For the sake of your own position, drop it.
That should read:
When you regress past the point of conception then you are dealing with different organisms.
This is exactly where the argument needs to be taken. If an embryo has exactly the same DNA as it’s mother, is it protected life?
Well, that’s not going to happen, though, outside of some strange cloning situation. So, I’m willing to let that matter drop till it becomes a real issue. (and hopefully somebody else’s problem 
)
I always find it humorus that people on the pro-life side of life display such ignorance on the subject they themselves detest.
I just love it when some pro-lifer comes along and thinks that people that support abortion do so because they want to have lots of unprotected sex and just have abortions to clear em away. ROFL. What a bunch of ignorant fucks. Do you know how dangerous it is to get an abortion? What kind of risks the women take? How about sterility. Yes, there is that chance of it happening. Death? Yep.
No, abortion is not something that is going to be used like this. Even morning after pills have their risks to the woman. To think like this is just plain stupid and irresponsible. Most pro-choice people are that way because they would rather see women get it done in a sterile, proffessional enviroment than in some back alley. Because that is what happened before it was legal. Some women pushed themselves down stairs to miscarriage. Many died because of that, or became sterile. It is going to happen no matter what your hoity doity morals feels about when a fetus becomes “truely human.” It is about practicality for most, not that they are bloodthirsty beasts that want to kill babies.
I understand the comfort at being able to point at a single defining moment and saying “AHA! Look! A human person worthy of full legal protection!” But I can’t do that and remain intellectually and morally honest with myself. I can’t look at five embryos in a petri dish getting poured down the drain and say the the doctor who disposed of them is a Mass Murderer.
Is this directed at me? I don’t recall explicitly saying whether I’m pro-life or not. Point is, there are some women who seem to be using abortion as their primary means of birth control. I’d say the problem isn’t that these women are having abortions, it’s that the effectiveness of traditional birth control methods needs to be improved.
No? In 1997, 45.5% of the abortions reported to the CDC were repeats.
Might want to do some research yourself before calling people ignorant fucks.
Guess you didn’t get the Pope’s missive on spanking the monkey, Ben.
I have to keep my notes straight here…usually pro choice folks emphasize how safe abortion is (well, for one of the individuals)…now you’re saying abortion is dangerous? Are you sure you’re on the right side in this debate?
Hmmmm :dubious:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jeff Olsen *
[45.5% of the abortions reported to the CDC were repeats. QUOTE]
I’m skeptical of the slant of the article itself considering the source. The other thing that comes to mind immediately is this: are all clinics performing pregnancy terminations in the U.S. required to report to the CDC? The answer may be ‘yes’, I simply don’t know, but if the answer is ‘no’ then I fail to find the statistical relevence.
For what it’s worth Jeff, if I want to prove a point to a pro-choice debate opponent, one of the least effective things I can think of is shoving a leaflet from an obviously biased source in their face. Might as well tell he/she’s wrong because of what you read in a Chick cartoon.
I’m sure they are worrying about the consequences- which are to have an abortion or have a baby. I know I’m not in the business of creating new, artifical and pointless consequences for women to punish them for chooseing to have sex (I betcha you’re all for abortion in cases of rape, right?).
fessie
Since I am not a Roman Catholic and since, for me, abortion is not a religious issue, whether the Pope is against monkey spanking, or whether he endorses it, or whether he engages in coke fuelled autoerotic asphyxiation circle jerks with Jimmy Swaggert and Oral Roberts is a matter of supreme indifference to me.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by finoa *
**
Well the linked web page cites the CDC…I’ll help you out…here is the original report referenced in the link.
Of course the whole point of Jeff’s cite (I think) was to refute the claim of Epimetheus that no one uses abortion as primary birth control. It’s fairly easy to disprove that claim…and Jeff did.
Actually, if there is a reporting bias…I suspect that the numbers of reported repeat abortions are lower than actual. (For better or worse, many folks…even pro choice folks…attach a certain social stigma to repeat abortions).
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (a “special affiliate” of Planned Parenthood). the percentage of repeat abortions was 46% of women in 1995. (The AGI hasn’t published a breakdown on repeat abortions recently). That seems inline with the stats from the CDC.
Dude. Sign me up for that newsletter!
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the stats, the CDC itself reflects them.
Regarding multiple abortions:
sven, I have no problem with abortions in cases of rape, incest, disease, financial hardship, etc. I do have a problem with numerous multiple abortions but as I said, that has more to do with the lack of other effective contraceptives.
On preview: thanks, Dave.
Correct on all counts, Blalron. My mother is 58 years old, and just hit menopause last year. I also want to get married, and I find it absolutely absurd that anyone would expect me to go the next 30 years (I’m 25 now) without ever having sex, even when I’m married simply because I don’t want kids and I can’t get fixed until I have two of them.
Although there is some hope. Some doctors will apparently perform the procedure for women over 35 who are married and have no kids, but still, it’s rather important to me to be able to have a happy sex life with an SO.
And what, exactly, do you expect from me while I wait for hell to freeze over?
Yah, because pro-choice people all have to agree on the same thing right? We are all baby killers and mass murderers and just love to see helpless babies killed right? :rolleyes:
Yes, abortion is dangerous: (and the pill) (warning, some of these sites may be slanted towards the pro-life, but the information is accurate)
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/abortion_effects.htm
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/aug/000829a.html
http://www.cogforlife.org/ru486fda.htm
http://www.interlife.org/clinic/sher1.html
Ok, so I was wrong that SOME women have repeated abortions. Sickening. There IS such a thing as a BC pill and shot…
Still doesn’t change my view of abortion. Better a fetus aborted than having a mother that doesn’t want it around.
Of course, the best thing would be a near-100% effective birth control device that has negligible side effects and doesn’t involve abortion or sterilization.
Well, I am thinking more along the lines of things like rape, and BC failing, NOT using abortion as BC. Dunno why people always attribute that towards pro-choice proponents.