Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Breakup of the Pro-Life Movement
Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH)
is, in many ways, a typical pro-life American. He opposes abortion and,
because of that, supports every effort to prevent the need for it. Just
like most pro-life Americans, Ryan supports contraception -- primarily
because it is the most effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy,
and thereby abortion. And yet because of this, Ryan no longer qualifies
as "pro-life." He was recently banished from the board of a national
pro-life group he served on for four years. Ryan, in return, has turned
vocal. He's leading the call for common ground and pragmatism, and
rallying the no longer silent majority of pro-lifers who support
contraception. And he is provocatively trying to fight what he views as
an unrepresentative slice of pro-lifers, those who can't bring
themselves to support contraception. "The new fault line," says Ryan,
"is not between pro-life and pro-choice people. It's within the
pro-life community. The question now is: 'are you pro-life and
pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions,
or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that
people's lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.'"
Ryan is committed to preventing abortion so much so that he, unlike every other pro-life legislator in Congress, spent the last few years working to identify the policies proven to reduce the need for abortion. This work, which he undertook with The Third Way, a center-left think tank, resulted in the "Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act." It's also called the Ryan-DeLauro bill, named for him and his co-sponsor Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT.) As thanks for his outspoken leadership in trying to make abortion less prevalent, Congressman Ryan was removed from the board of Democrats for Life of America, and with it, disowned by the pro-life movement at large. Pro-life publications have taken to qualifying his pro-life status as "allegedly" pro life or referring to him as someone "who claims to be" pro-life. Because of his support of prevention in 2007-2008 congressional session, Ryan received a "0" rating from National Right to Life Committee. According to the pro-life establishment's new standards, his support for prevention means he no longer qualifies as "pro-life." And that means very few pro-life Americans will either.
It may come as a shock to most pro-life Americans, but there's not one pro-life group in the United States that supports contraception. Rather, many lead campaigns against contraception. As Congressman Ryan explained, "I think the pro-life groups are finding themselves further and further removed from the mainstream; they're on the fringe of this debate." Considering that the average woman spends 23 years of her life trying not to get pregnant, the anti-contraception approach depends on a scourge of sexless marriages or a lot of wishful thinking.
Ryan's legislation increases funding for contraception, expands supports for poor women who wish to carry to term, backs comprehensive sex ed programs that have been proven to work, and creates more incentives for adoptive families. His bill is supported by many prominent pro-life individuals including, Dr. Frank S. Page, Rev. Joel Hunter, and Jim Wallis, and many pro-choice groups including Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Not one leading pro-life group signed onto the bill.
Lucky for Congressman Ryan, his support for contraception places him in a good position with pro-life voters. He is a pioneer in this rich common ground frontier. The vast majority of pro-life Americans, 80%, support contraception. Even among Catholics, followers of the only religion to oppose artificial contraception, 90% support contraception. Of evangelicals, including the most vehemently anti-abortion, the born-again, only 28% support abortion rights, yet 88% support contraception. Indeed, among all religious groups, support for contraception is off the charts: 94% of Baptists, 99% of Presbyterians, 95% of Methodists, 95% of Lutherans, 97% of Jewish want greater access to contraception. And have you ever seen a poll to report 100% support for anything? You can count on the easy-going Episcopalians for that unanimous support for contraception. (Support for puppies and goodness score lower.) Even a cozy majority, 70%, of Republican and Independent voters are strong supporters of expanding access to contraception. What percentage of these voters supports the pro-life establishment's agenda to restrict access to contraception? 2%.
Pro-life Americans favor expanding access to contraception because of the undeniable pro-life results. Unintended pregnancy is the root cause of abortion. We know, when used properly, contraception works. Two thirds of American women on contraception are using it correctly. And from this group comes 5% of the nation's unintended pregnancies. Compare this to the 16% of women who are sexually active, at risk of getting pregnant and not using any form of contraception. That group, though much smaller, represents 52% of nation's unintended pregnancies. Then there's the 19% of women who are using contraception but incorrectly or inconsistently; from that group comes 43% of unintended pregnancies. The greatest opportunity to reduce the need for abortion is to focus the 95% of unintended pregnancies that are highly preventable. The plan is simple: address the lack of and incorrect use of contraception. (Article continues below graphic.)
1. Gold RB et al., Next Steps for America's Family Planning Program: Leveraging the Potential of Medicaid and Title X in an Evolving Health Care System, New York: Guttmacher Institute 2009, Figure 1.2.
To his credit, Congressman Ryan did his best to try to convince pro-life groups of this. I spoke with Congressman Ryan last week after his press conference to announce his bill. He explained, "It was really frustrating to try to convince people that just didn't want to hear it. I went to the Democrats for Life of America's national board meeting that they had in DC a few years back and there were 50 board members or so and I gave them my pitch: If you're really for reducing abortions you've gotta be for contraception. I gave them all the statistics on unintended pregnancy and that most abortions take place for women within 200% of poverty and all this stuff and it just didn't resonate with them at all and so we had this stark disagreement and I got the boot."
The anti-contraception minority, which represents just 20% of pro-lifers, has disproportionate influence and, with it, hopes to derail common ground efforts the public has longed for. It's time for the disagreement over contraception to be addressed by the pro-life community at large. We will have no chance of making a real impact on unintended pregnancy and abortion rates without dramatic, informed strategies on prevention. The pro-life public must demand accountability and representation for their pro-contraception values. Considering that 80% of pro-life Americans support contraception, isn't it time to establish at least one pro-life organization in support of it too?
Congressman Ryan thought that would be a great idea. He predicted such a group would expose those who really aren't interested in reducing the need for abortion. "We have an opportunity here to solve this problem and give pro-life members of Congress and pro-life legislators a common sense approach to this and boy does it marginalize those people who have really beat the drum on the pro-life issue and have not provided any solution to it."
90 Comments so far
Show AllThank you, Christina Page for a heartening article.
The fact that pro-life and pro-choice can agree on the fundamental issue PREVENTION brings joy to my heart.
I also give my utmost respect to congressman Tim Ryan for his enlightened views towards the end of abortions some day.
Another important benefit of prevention,is relieving the pressures of population growth.
If anyone is interested in Citizen Central, they will be posting their post in the post section of the first ARTICLE
listed on the web site commondreams.org July 30 ,2009
"The fact that pro-life and pro-choice can agree on the fundamental issue PREVENTION brings joy to my heart."
I certainly agree with this, to the extent that it happens at times. The extreme sides are not going to change each other's minds, recent decades of history show that.
My Hindu religion generally prohibits abortion. Yet, abortion would be used in India to keep the male population more than the female population only to have it lead to poverty. Despite all that, I find the "pro-life" arguments in the West totally inconsistent.
Did these anti-contraception ding-dongs come over on the Mayflower with the Puritans? Like all we need on the planet is an expanding population, right?
Many good points above.
It seems the faultline the article mentions is between anti-abortion and anti-sex.
No one is all hot to have an abortion. It's not like there's a fan club. The most ardent pro-Choice advocates I know would much rather see the need for abortion eliminated. On that we can agree with a Tim Ryan. Where we fall out is that the option of abortion must be left open and the Anti-Abortion people want to close it.
The preposterously misnamed "Pro-Life" movement was not hijacked, it came from the extremes and extremists (like Randall Terry and the Pope) and it was part of the hijacking of the center right by Religious and political conservatives.
And they have been consistantly opposed to contraception which makes their underlying motive that much clearer, the suppression of the sexual liberation that cracked open in the sixties (already blunted so much by the plague since the 80s). Same people were opposed to interracial marriage back in the day and got their tits in the wringer over Gays, now, too.
The ancient church controlled the peasants by controling three things, sex, drugs and music. No sex outside of marriage, no marriage outside of Church. Wine on Holy Days and as a sacrament and sacred music was the only music that played in church, the only venue.
According to them, the world started going to Hell with Martin Luther. He spelled the end of the theocracy of Rome and they've been fighting to restore it ever since.
If they can make sex dangerous and the possible consequences massive for women, they exert that malign influence to men on the bounce. An effort to put sex back in the box.
The Republican Party appears divided into approximately three camps, with some overlap: the coercively religious, the coercively imperialist neo-cons, and the libertarians.
I suspect the factionalism in the religious right will not divide them from the party without a strong rightist 3rd party. They share too many values in common with the imperialists.
I should think the unsettled wing of the Republican Party is the libertarians, who are not at all well represented by the party as a whole. Many Republicans of libertarian leaning would have voted Nader as a least-worst over McCain had Nader sufficient popular support otherwise.
This represents some possibility for coalition.
Cristina Page has made the classic mistake of accepting the enemy's description of himself. By using the term "pro-life" in both its literal and political meanings she perpetuates the confusion desired by the organizations that call themselves "pro-life". I don't call them pro-life; I call them fetus-worshippers, because their policies have the predictable (and, one may conclude, intended) effect of maximizing the number of fetuses in existence. Recall that these groups have no concern for the welfare of people in the "post-fetal" stage, i.e. after they're born.
The anti-woman group Democrats for Life just showed its true colors. If a woman has sex with a man, then she needs to get pregnant and accept her fate. Women are not entitled to the same consideration and priviledges as men; ie. making their own decisions about each and every aspect of their lives and the various small issues that come up along the way. We women are too stupid, too immoral, too selfish, too lazy, too inept, too immature, too silly, etc to be allowed the rights of a 1st class citizen. Yada, yada, yada, etc.
Screw all of the anti-women crowd; they are a bunch of selfish, disrespect, hateful and mean people and I wouldn't let any of them even cat sit my cats.
The people 'who really beat the drum on the pro-life issue' are short-sighted idiots. The global population is nearing 7 billion, almost twice what a long-term sustainable global population should be. Most of them are using 'pro-life' as a political tool to attract right wingers and their campaign support.
It doesn't take a genius to realize contraception stops unwanted population growth. It doesn't take a genius to realize proper contraception stops the need for abortion.
"It doesn't take a genius to realize proper contraception stops the need for abortion."
Except for the fact that all contraceptives have some associated failure rate, you are correct.
Everything in this world has some associated failure rate. Why don't you just go live in heaven?
"Everything in this world has some associated failure rate."
You agree with me then. Great!
No I don't.
Your objection about the failure rate of contraceptives is a red herring. Everything fails. Do you also spend your time go around pointing out the failure rates of all other medical procedures, all cars, all planes, all mechanical processes, etc ad infinitum.
"Your objection about the failure rate of contraceptives is a red herring."
Not really, when you can scroll back and read what I was responding too:
"It doesn't take a genius to realize proper contraception stops the need for abortion."
It doesn't *always* stop the "need" for abortion, not when it fails. Bringing up contraception in this manner is what really is a red herring, because in fact you don't just avoid the issue when it fails, as was alluded.
Heaven? jakenewton deserves to live in hell for annoying us !
You think Tim Ryan is bad enough? You haven't seen the worst yet. Out here in the Sooner, not only are we stuck with anti-abortion zealots but honor killings against pregnant teens go unpunished and considered by some as saving "national security" !! Just last week, another 25 year old woman in my neighborhood who was raped by 4 men 4 months ago was shot to death by her father and mutiliated by her mother for sneaking an abortion instead of choosing to bear the child from rape. She is poor, unemployed, is forced to live with her parents as a result, and is thus uninsured. Her life was already in danger and yet her parents proudly talked against their own daughter in front of others cracking jokes about personal responsibility.
What does Dan Boren have to say about life? He railed against abortion before winning that seat and used to write local editorial preaching personal responsibility against women who are pushed into unwanted pregnancies and the same on gun safety. He also supports expanding the military and more WMDs. That makes him truly anti-life but in this district, people call it "prolife" !
We get a lot of this foolishness out here in MS too except for that honor killings stuff. Most of the white conservative Democrats we couldn't tell that they're even Democrats unless someone said so.
Just as the GOP has been hijacked by right wing fruit cakes, so too has the "Pro-Life" movement been commandeered by a cadre of people who's "values" would not be out of place during Medieval times. What is also truly scary about their putative agenda is that women not having control over their reproductive lives is a prime facet of Third world poverty. Of course, when one considers who is bank rolling the "Pro-Life" movement, that is their aim entirely...a return to feudalism, with them as the new aristocracy.
"women not having control over their reproductive lives"
Can you please explain why statments like these are constantly made while ignoring the obvious and stated concern of pro lifers concerning the baby/fetus?
Re jakenewton July 29th, 2009 12:21 pm
The "obvious and stated concern of pro lifers concerning the baby/fetus" are of exactly as much evidentiary value as the stated concern of Paulson, Geithner and Summers for the health of the economy; as the stated concerns of O'Bummer for peace as he expands the Afghan occupation into Pakistan; as the stated concerns of Madame Speaker Pelosi for health-care reform while she addresses the needs of her corporate donors; etc., etc.
Why, in what purports to be a free society, do individual women have to fight for what should be a given: autonomy in making decisions about if and when to bear children? Self-described libertarians ought to be sympathetic to the argument that one's concern for a fetus, however sincere, must stop at the mother's uterine wall.
Sioux
JETHRO: Thank you! It gets tedious to take this on again and again, as if we need to reinvent the wheel into perpetuity. I appreciate your answering the great rhethorical question lingering in our midst.
Jethro: I second Sioux Rose's appreciation of your articulation of this issue -- a woman's right to choose when, and if, she wants to bear children.
Sioux: Do you agree then with my tentative conclusion that many on the pro choice side are happy to disenfranchise themselves from any debate against the pro life side by ignoring the basis of pro life position? I am just trying to understand here. And if so, do you think it's the smartest way to go, especially when you consider recent trends in attitudes about abortion?
There is nothing pro life about the "pro-lifers". The pro-choicers include the right to life option and are in fact truly pro life. The pro choice side did everything they could to debate the misnamed "pro-life" side but they wanted it their way or the highway. The "pro-life" side is a total contradiction of itself. There is no reasoning with them.
When a woman's life is at stake, the pro-choicers side with saving her life first and possibly the baby's where possible. The "pro-lifers" don't so they're double murderers in effect. I have met "pro-lifers" who even support honor killings against pregnant teens to try or sneak an abortion for unwanted pregnancies that weren't necessarily their fault.
Peter,
I read the story about what happened to the 25-year-old woman who was a victim of rape in Sooner land. How can anyone think this is OK?
This story when it showed up on the local news was distorted as just another common murder. The local media would just say parents accused of killing their daughter. They would talk nothing of the abortion part. To answer your question on the insanity, these people are trained to worry about the fetus only and pay no attention to their actual life once born. Reasoning with these loonies is virtually impossible. I'm sorry that my state votes for the looniest to send to Washington.
I lived in Nebraska for quite a few years -- and therefore, I am familiar with the views, as well as the people, you describe.
"This story when it showed up on the local news was distorted as just another common murder. The local media would just say parents accused of killing their daughter. They would talk nothing of the abortion part. "
Then how do you even know there was an "abortion part" if they never reported it in this case, let alone in all the other cases stemming from this "common" occurrence in your area?
"these people are trained to worry about the fetus only and pay no attention to their actual life once born."
Unsupported.
Where the hell do you come from anyway to be spouting such religious bullsh*t? This has been going on out here in the Deep South for years. You're not the boss to dictate who's lying and who isn't especially when you're the one doing all the lying and annoying. Either you grow up or keep your mouth shut sonny boy !
"This has been going on out here in the Deep South for years."
How do you know?
"Either you grow up or keep your mouth shut sonny boy !"
LOL! Sure thing, Skippy.
"There is nothing pro life about the "pro-lifers". "
Even given the fact that they think a pregnancy should be taken to term, they are not "pro life" vis a vis the fetus at least? Please try to be more serious.
"The pro choice side did everything they could to debate the misnamed "pro-life" side but they wanted it their way or the highway. "
Isn't "Hands of my Body" the same as "My way or the Highway" in that it simply ignores the basis of the position of the other side? I think it is.
"When a woman's life is at stake, the pro-choicers side with saving her life first and possibly the baby's where possible."
Fine.
"The "pro-lifers" don't so they're double murderers in effect."
What is your very best example of this?
"I have met "pro-lifers" who even support honor killings against pregnant teens "
In the US? I have never heard of such a thing. I seriously doubt your sincerity here, but if you want to explain it I'll listen.
"Isn't "Hands of my Body" the same as "My way or the Highway" in that it simply ignores the basis of the position of the other side? I think it is. "
That you think it is shows that the problem with your argument.
The other side, such as so called libertarians such as you, has no right, NONE whatsoever, to dictate to a woman what she does with her body.
You have NO RIGHT to demand that your position be heard.
It is interesting that so called libertarians think that society has a right to have a say in what a woman does with her body.
"That you think it is shows that the problem with your argument."
Explain how.
"so called libertarians such as you,"
I'm not a Libertarian, you are confusing me with someone else.
"has no right, NONE whatsoever, to dictate to a woman what she does with her body."
Except if I think that her having an abortion constitutes the murder of her child. So goes the theory. One's right to do something stops where it infringes on the right of someone else. We are back where we started. If you think you can just ignore the basis of the opposition than just say that and stop trying to debate it anymore. The question then is whether or not that is politically epedient.
"You have NO RIGHT to demand that your position be heard."
I know that already. So what?
First off, you need to learn the difference between a baby, a fetus and an embryo. These terms aren't interchangeable. Second, you need to learn the difference between birth and life. These people are not pro-life, they are pro-birth, and they are usually the first to start pissing and moaning when their taxes are increased for schools and childrens' services.
You don't like abortion? Don't have one. And since you are not the steward of anyone's soul but your own, you should mind your own f*cking business. I happen to believe your belief constitutes the murder of already-born women, so should I take matters into my own hands, get a gun and kill you so that women can continue to live?
"First off, you need to learn the difference between a baby, a fetus and an embryo."
Thanks for your response. I know those terms. *You* need to learn an additional term, "unique individual human life worthy of the protection of the state". The staunch pro life side has dug in on the idea that this protection should be available upon conception, and there is really no sound basis to disprove that idea, as it is a matter of philosophical debate.
"they are usually the first to start pissing and moaning when their taxes are increased for schools and childrens' services."
You are changing the subject. One can be pro choice like I am, and also want limits on government programs. There is very little useful overlap between the two issues, so if you are discussing abortion you should stick to that and not muddy the water.
"You don't like abortion? Don't have one."
Bumper sticker with zero nuance or insight into the real issues. Another version of how to pretend the opposition is not in the room, and to stifle debate, by throwing out a dumb slogan. The issue is more convoluted then that. They think abortion is murder, remember? That's not unreasonable given that the philosophical question of when life begins is still not settled and never will be. Since you commit to the same tactic that I think may be harmful to your case, I'll ask you as I've asked the others if you really think pretending the opposition doesn't exist is the best way to advance your cause?
"I happen to believe your belief constitutes the murder of already-born women,"
You misunderstand my belief, else this statement is just truly bizarre. I am reluctantly pro choice. The *belief* I have underlying this position is that the issue is so complex and debatable that it's the last place for government to meddle.
"get a gun and kill you"
Simmer down there. Dennis already whacked me with his cane. He was unable to discuss the issue directly and just expressed outrage. You aren’t like that too are you?
"Except if I think that her having an abortion constitutes the murder of her child. So goes the theory. One's right to do something stops where it infringes on the right of someone else. We are back where we started. If you think you can just ignore the basis of the opposition than just say that and stop trying to debate it anymore. The question then is whether or not that is politically epedient."
And what about the right of the woman not to be infringed upon? What about the right of the woman not to have her body be infringed upon?
If you are so concerned about the fetus, put your money where your mouth is. Come up with a way for you and others like you to carry a fetus to term. You can then carry the fetus to term.
"And what about the right of the woman not to be infringed upon?"
It's a very good point, but it competes with other rights. That's why the issue is complicated, not simple, because of the differing views of individual people.
"If you are so concerned about the fetus,"
I'm not. Not personally anyway. In case you haven't figured it out, especially after I said I was pro choice, I am playing devil's advocate.
"Even given the fact that they think a pregnancy should be taken to term, they are not "pro life" vis a vis the fetus at least?"
Fetus is before life. You cannot call that "pro-life" unless you want to get political about it.
"Isn't "Hands of my Body" the same as "My way or the Highway" in that it simply ignores the basis of the position of the other side? I think it is."
You're mixing apples with oranges. Why exactly do the misnamed "pro-lifers" want the baby anyway? I see nothing wrong with a woman chosing to be honest with herself. Almost all the time, women have good reasons to terminate pregnancies such as rape, very bad economic and financial conditions which make it nearly impossible to actually care for the child, or the possibility that her pregnancy went wrong somewhere and her life is at stake and that maybe the only way to survive will involve having to terminate the pregnancy. I'm no medical guru but you have to look at all the factors and possibilities instead of inventing fake "pro-life" bs. A true pro-lifer would respect a woman's personal decision. Women would generally work it out with their doctors and their men provided that their men are reasonable and willing to work out harmless solutions that would obviate the need for abortion. Neither you nor I have the right to her child.
"What is your very best example of this?"
Let's put it this way. The misnamed "pro-lifers" care only about the fetus and not about the lives of the women that are at stake. Dead women cannot give birth to children so it is in effect double murder. This one is common sense.
"In the US? I have never heard of such a thing. I seriously doubt your sincerity here, but if you want to explain it I'll listen."
It's commonplace out here in OK. Trouble is they underreport it just like they do unemployment.
"Fetus is before life."
Wrong. A fetus is *alive*, and furthermore has all the DNA required to distinguish it as an individual, whether politically, scientifically or morally that is currently true or will be.
"You cannot call that "pro-life" unless you want to get political about it."
I can't take you seriusly. The issue *is* political, that's why we have an article about it here on a *political* blog.
"You're mixing apples with oranges."
Nonsense. "Hand's off my Body", as a bumper sticker slogan, is no different from "My Way or the Highway" in that both express an unwillingness to discuss anything further.
"A true pro-lifer would respect a woman's personal decision."
Explain how this statement would reconcile with the beleif that a fetus is a human that should not be killed.
"Let's put it this way. The misnamed "pro-lifers" care only about the fetus and not about the lives of the women that are at stake."
I asked for an example to support the statement that pro-lifers only care about the futus. You decline to give an example, and instead slightly rephrase the original statement. I can see this won't go well.
"Dead women cannot give birth to children so it is in effect double murder."
What you need to do is provide an example where the woman is dead because the pro-lifers don't care about her. I'll wait.
"It's commonplace out here in OK."
Sorry, I think you made this up since you refuse to support it.
The Christian inspired idea that a life begins at conception is just that...a religious idea.
And surprise, surprise, not all religions postulate that life begins at conception (Judaism postulates that life begins at birth, for example).
Simply put, Christian religious dogma has no place imposing its' will upon the entirety of the population in a country where the Constitution explicitly states there is to be a separation of church and state.
Let me make this plain, I refuse to be subject to Christian "Pro-Life morality" regarding contraception or abortion, & will fight like Hell to maintain this freedom.
"The Christian inspired idea that a life begins at conception is just that...a religious idea."
Utter hogwash. I tend to beleive it myself and I am not religous. There is *scientific* evidence that a unique individual human life begins at conception, there is no religous requirement whatsoever. I suppose you think a fetus is something more like a tumor? The fact is that the moral question as to when life begins in not settled and never will be.
"Simply put, Christian religious dogma has no place imposing its' will upon the entirety of the population"
I agree with you, how about that.
"in a country where the Constitution explicitly states there is to be a separation of church and state."
The Constitution says no such thing, you evidently haven't read this part.
"Let me make this plain, I refuse to be subject to Christian "Pro-Life morality" regarding contraception or abortion,"
Great, because in this thread anyway you never were. You can refuse to discuss it for any other reason you want, not that one though.
"& will fight like Hell to maintain this freedom."
Actually Nate, if you are pro choice and male, you don't have any say in the matter anyway. You've disqualified yourself by "choosing" that view.
"Actually Nate, if you are pro choice and male, you don't have any say in the matter anyway. You've disqualified yourself by "choosing" that view."
Ah the wonders of selective quoting. Males use contraception too.
"Males use contraception too."
Including me. I was talking about abortion, not contraception. Obviously. Nate has no say in the matter of an abortion for anyone.
You're making a mumbo jumbo out of common sense and since you refuse to reason, I'll leave you to your last word. I thought I explained it thoroughly enough.
Not a bad try at obfuscation, though your characterization of what you call "common sense" is the mumbo jumbo.
What part of I refuse is to be governed by their (and I suspect, your) Christian based "morality" in regards to abortion and contraception do you not understand? It's quite simple really: "Pro-Lifers" desire to foist their morality upon everyone else and no other position is negotiable in their calculation. They are the ones whom are "My way or the highway," while I am quite content to let them wallow in their ignorance as long as it only effects them. Unfortunately, that is not their agenda, as they wish to make their ignorance the law of the land.
Responding to Pete? Or to me? See my other post to *you*. The idea is to click reply under the post you are replying to.
"I'll leave you to your last word."
Suit yourself.
"The "obvious and stated concern of pro lifers concerning the baby/fetus" are of exactly as much evidentiary value as the stated concern of Paulson, Geithner and Summers for the health of the economy; as the stated concerns of O'Bummer for peace as he expands the Afghan occupation into Pakistan; as the stated concerns of Madame Speaker Pelosi for health-care reform while she addresses the needs of her corporate donors; etc., etc"
That is quite a leap of sweeping illogic there Jethro. I was under the assumption that the pro choic side would be interested in honest and direct debate with the opposition of the very specific subject, and not just recklessly change subjects so willy nilly. I suppose this is an answer to my question though, that no such desire to debate the issue exists by some on that side, but that isn't a very good option in the long run when you consider political reality.
"Why, in what purports to be a free society, do individual women have to fight for what should be a given: autonomy in making decisions about if and when to bear children?"
Again, the answer is obvious when you don't pretend that you don't know that most pro life people consider abortion to be murder.
"one's concern for a fetus, however sincere, must stop at the mother's uterine wall."
See above.
Sioux Rose
JAKE: I find you absolutely TOO tedious on this subject. I'd have to be paid by the word to debate you. It's ALL been said before. I am glad others, like Peter Pike, have jumped in to do the heavy lifting. It's hard to say if you were born "a devil's advocate" or found your way there through odd social conditioning. Your letter-of-the-law approach to a great many subjects truly diminishes your capacity to recognize what's ultimately involved... and at stake.
"JAKE: I find you absolutely TOO tedious on this subject. I'd have to be paid by the word to debate you."
Or I raise questions that make you think a bit more?
" I am glad others, like Peter Pike, have jumped in to do the heavy lifting."
He dropped the load unfortunately, you might do better yourself for one thing, and then end up finding out that we agree on a lot of it anyway.
"Your letter-of-the-law approach to a great many subjects truly diminishes your capacity to recognize what's ultimately involved... and at stake."
So I'll repeat what I said earlier: In my own case, I think the woman has a right simply because I cannot determine the proper role of government in the situation and probably never will. The limited government role idea should in turn appeal to those claiming to be conservatives. Do you think that is so "letter of the law"? In fact, it's an admission on my part about the true complexity of the issue, and that just on the philosophical side.
Actually it isn't an admission on your part about the complexity of the issue, not when you limit yourself to the caveat about the role of government.
It is consistent with the position of a certain strain of libertarian thinking that equates libertarianism with simply opposition to government, instead of protecting individual liberty for everyone, from everyone, whether it is government, society, corporations, churches, whomever.
Jake, I've been reading your rotten gibberish and if I were right in front of you, I'd be whacking you with my cane for talking like that! If you had any respect for women, you'd actually be paying close attention to and learning from others rather than trying to engage in a replying topping contest. Your brain needs a serious dosage of OMEGA3s. Either you learn or keep your mouth shut and take your Fox News talking points to Fox News where you belong sonny boy !
"Jake, I've been reading your rotten gibberish and if I were right in front of you, I'd be whacking you with my cane for talking like that!"
That way you could avoid an intelligent discussion I guess, like you are doing now? Suit yourself, I could care less about you.
What intelligent discussion? All you've been trying to generate was a retarded discussion with no regards to the life and safety of women. Go back to school and do your homework sonny boy !
*shrug*
Re jakenewton July 29th, 2009 2:06 pm, who accuses me of "illogic."
The illogic is not mine. Except for some members of Pax Christi whom I have met, those who describe themselves as "pro-life" are apparently okay with exceptions for war and the death penalty. And, as the article points out (you did read it, right?), while opposing a woman's right to an abortion, they also oppose a woman's right to prevent conception. This latter attitude obviously cannot spring from concern for a fetus, since sex without conception does not produce a fetus.
My larger point in the first paragraph was that one's stated concerns often mask other unspoken agendas, and that therefore words aren't as reliable an indicator of intent as deeds.
As for "honest and direct debate," consider your own statement: "...most pro life people consider abortion to be murder." Does the recent murder of Dr. George Tiller in his own church seem logical to you in that context? The use of firearms may be honest and direct, but it isn't debate in the strict sense.
Jethro Tullamore: You said:
"[A]s the article points out (you did read it, right?), while opposing a woman's right to an abortion, they also oppose a woman's right to prevent conception. This latter attitude obviously cannot spring from concern for a fetus, since sex without conception does not produce a fetus."
If I were religious, I would say, thank God for clear thinking! Well, I said it anyway.
"thank God for clear thinking!"
Actually, the thinking was kind of muddled. Obviously, "concern for a fetus," refers to an existing fetus, after the fact of conception. Where did anyone say that they had any concern for a fetus that does not yet or may never exist, or that there must be a specific effort to produce more fetuses than would otherwise be produced? Of, course, they never did. Lame. And besides, the article points out that those pro lifers opposed to contraception are a small 20% minority of all pro-lifers.
Jakenewton (by the way, good to see you again; you took a beating a while back for challenging some people and got pegged as a troll): The muddled thinking is in your comment. The anti-contraception attitude is about something other than protecting fetuses. It reflects the fundamentalist view that engaging in sex cannot be morally justified unless in a marriage for the purpose of having children. That's not a sustainable position now, if it ever was. Also, the article concerns the fact that the small minority of pro-lifers (anti-choicers) who oppose contraception have disproportionate sway that has divided the pro-life movement.
"Jakenewton (by the way, good to see you again;"
Thanks, "they" renewed my funding. :-)
"The anti-contraception attitude is about something other than protecting fetuses."
I agree. But Jethro apparently tried to show some inconsistency in the relatively small number who both beleive an existing fetus should be protected and that contraception should not be used. I see no contradiction. Jethro seemed to imply that those who wish to protect existing fetuses should also promote the creation of additional ones to be consistent, which is a non sequiter. If you think I am missing something please explain.
"It reflects the fundamentalist view that engaging in sex cannot be morally justified unless in a marriage for the purpose of having children. That's not a sustainable position now, if it ever was."
The above is a religious/philosophical viewpoint. It's not an issue of sustainability on it's merits or lack thereof. You believe it or you don't. It's lack of sustainability is a matter of it's apparent decline in popularity.
"Also, the article concerns the fact that the small minority of pro-lifers (anti-choicers) who oppose contraception have disproportionate sway that has divided the pro-life movement."
I know that but I hadn't intended to address that one way or another. It's interesting but I don't think the author made a strong case that it's true. He certainly does not seem to try to make any case that there is inconsistency in the two viewpoints with these people.
See you.
"Except for some members of Pax Christi whom I have met, those who describe themselves as "pro-life" are apparently okay with exceptions for war and the death penalty."
As well as self defence, I am sure. "Pro-Life", in the vast majority of cases where it is used, is applicable to abortion only. We have already differentiated abortion with other types of killing that some would say is justified, it's a different subject.
"they also oppose a woman's right to prevent conception."
And if *some* do, it's also an entirely different subject. Not everyone who is against abortion is against contraception, we have covered this already too.
"My larger point in the first paragraph was that one's stated concerns often mask other unspoken agendas, and that therefore words aren't as reliable an indicator of intent as deeds."
That's fine, and a good point, but I think you should avoid generalizations.
"As for "honest and direct debate," consider your own statement: "...most pro life people consider abortion to be murder." Does the recent murder of Dr. George Tiller in his own church seem logical to you in that context?"
It's obvious the murderer justified the murder in his mind in that it prevented abortions. Also, he was not a typical example of a pro life person by any stretch. What does this have to do with the pro choice side ignoring the fact that pro-lifers think abortion is murder? You are changing the subject again.
Just level with me: Do you think the pro choice side should just ignore the opposition or not? If so, why?
Re jakenewton July 29th, 2009 3:17 pm
As we're seeing here, abortion is one of those perfect wedge issues so beloved by the ruling classes; because there is no possibility of compromise, groups of people can be set noisily against each other while all their pockets are quietly being picked.
Your question "Do you think the pro choice side should just ignore the opposition or not? If so, why?" plays into this. Do you recall Swift's cautionary tale about the endless war fought between those who were taught to open their eggs at the small end, and those whose faith told them that was blasphemy?
One either thinks abortion is a medical procedure to be decided on by a woman and her doctor, or is an offense against God which must be proscribed by law. There is no middle ground and, therefore, no hope of reaching a middle ground through debate.
Jethro Tullamore July 29th, 2009 3:54 pm: while I sympathize with your frustration (especially because one of the participants here is an expert at causing intellectual frustration), I think Roe v. Wade found a middle ground and has remained viable for nearly 40 years now.
What do you and the others (including Jakenewton) make of my observation that the pro-life theory that life begins at conception is very damaging and unfair to those subjected to it? I say that because if honestly and sincerely accepted, it forces the believer to agonize about the fact (as the theory requires) that thousands of murders taking place every day go unprosecuted and therefore unpunished. Many of the believers find themselves in the uncomfortable position of sympathizing with those who kill abortion providers. A few actually become killers themselves, thinking that they are defending the innocent victims of abortionists. I see this doctrine as toxic and sinister, and not as evoking in the believers compassion, love, or virtue. Not surprisingly, therefore, many of them also favor capital punishment, gleefully endorse oppression of gays, and show little empathy, if not outright antipathy, for the poor, minorities, and innocent victims of U.S. wars.
"(especially because one of the participants here is an expert at causing intellectual frustration)"
All I want to do here is get people to think about something in away they hadn't before. That would seem to be a common and appropriate use of this service.
"the pro-life theory that life begins at conception is very damaging and unfair to those subjected to it?"
By itself the theory or beleif is benign. The subjection occurs only when laws support it in some way, or if public expressions of the beleif intrude into the lives of the subjects you are alluding to.
"it forces the believer to agonize about the fact (as the theory requires) that thousands of murders taking place every day go unprosecuted and therefore unpunished."
You and I discussed this not too long ago, correct?
"Many of the believers find themselves in the uncomfortable position of sympathizing with those who kill abortion providers."
Which is understandable given their belief. But as I recall, we also focused on the woman as complicit in the "murder", and I recall suggesting that the difference lies in the fact that the abortion doctor is committed more or less to providing the service as a matter of routine, with the numbers accumulating greatly over time, contrasted with the woman who likely is in the situation only once in her lifetime. The woman seems more of a sympathetic figure than the doctor, to the anti abortion person. I still think that.
"A few actually become killers themselves, thinking that they are defending the innocent victims of abortionists."
Givin the strong belief that the fetuses are victims, how is the thinking illogical? It's one life vs. hundreds or thousands. There are similar dilemmas that face those who order men into battle. Even though the choice is paradoxical, one is comparing likely outcomes, and they ostensibly choose the "better" outcome.
"I see this doctrine as toxic and sinister, and not as evoking in the believers compassion, love, or virtue. Not surprisingly, therefore, many of them also favor capital punishment,"
What if you grant that they believe they are acting for a "better" outcome, as I outlined above? This thinking would apply nicely to the capital punishment situation,
"gleefully endorse oppression of gays, and show little empathy, if not outright antipathy, for the poor, minorities, and innocent victims of U.S. wars."
But I think these items are off base. I would add though: Individuals have limited capacity to care for different things IMO. If you perceive a lack of caring on that part of an anti abortion vis a vis some other thing that you think is worthy of caring, it could simply reflect the limited capacity I think we all have. Nice talking to you.
jakenewton July 30th, 2009 9:00 pm: not a lot of time to respond, and the thread is obviously dying.
I can't argue with you on intellectual frustration. The greatest discoveries have come after years, maybe hundreds of years, of intellectual frustration. "Challenge" might be a better word.
You don't seem to really disagree with my thesis that "life begins at conception" is actually a sinister, psychologically damaging idea, as well as being the source of much loss and suffering due to prevention of needed abortions. You in fact added to my thesis by mentioning women, who sometimes go through a lot of anguish after having abortions. For example, Roe from Roe v. Wade. When I see or hear her, she doesn't seem to be happy. Her life appears to have gone downhill since she turned "pro-life," except in that she obtained support from others similarly afflicted.
Your other points don't particularly impress me. Actually, they're a little frustrating.
You could state my thesis another way. People who must have religious doctrines might as well choose doctrines that will make them happy, such as what Siouxrose proposed (Siouxrose July 29th, 2009 4:05 pm.). Her view also has the advantage of not implying that abortion doctors (and women who get abortions) ought to be prosecuted for murder.
"You don't seem to really disagree with my thesis that "life begins at conception" is actually a sinister, psychologically damaging idea, "
I do disagree that it is "sinister", in the usual sense of that word. Sorry if that was not clear.
"For example, Roe from Roe v. Wade. When I see or hear her, she doesn't seem to be happy. Her life appears to have gone downhill since she turned "pro-life," except in that she obtained support from others similarly afflicted."
It makes logical sense for someone who has had an abortion and comes later to understand in her mind that abortion is the same as murder to be upset about it. If she appears in public about it, it seems consistent that she would not look cheery. Psychological damage like that can be dealt with through counseling sometimes. If the woman's feeling about abortion stems from religous affiliation, that same religion most likely teaches that "God" can be forgiving of any sin, including hers.
I don't know what else to say but to offer a contrast to "Roe". It may be a bit "too much information". I had a girlfriend once, and by and by it came time for us to have sex. She was ready to go and I obviously had no condom. When I brought this up, she seemed a little annoyed, but took the effort to go down the hall and retrieve her diaphram. Had she not done so, I am not sure that I would have continued on with it or not, without protection.
Anyway, some weeks later, the subject of pregnancy came up, and she mentioned casually and with a detectable smile on her face, that if she ever got pregnant, I would never know. She would just "take care of it" and that would be that. I don't know if she was trying to impress me or what, but she did.
When she said this, I knew things would be over very soon and they were. It was clear to me that she saw abortion as an alternative form of birth control, that she saw pregnancy to be simply inconvenient and annoying, at that point in her life anyway. I suppose too that if there were instead any difficult thoughts or feelings in a situation where she was pregnant as a result of her willingness to have a sexual relationship that that too would be inconvenient and annoying. I have absolutely no doubt that whatever underlying beliefs she had that supported her utterly casual view of these things they would not be the least bit psychologically damaging to her. And I don't think she was "better" for any of this.
Some things are actually supposed to be serious after all, and thoughts and feelings about them might not be easy and simple.
"People who must have religious doctrines might as well choose doctrines that will make them happy,"
What about the idea that a doctrine, religous or not, should perhaps ring as truth in one's heart? Looking towards a "happy" result may be at odds with "truth".
Edited to add: I wonder the role that advancement of technology plays. Years ago, reliable and safe abortion simply didn't exist. Is it simply the arrival of reliable technology that led to different attitudes? I think so, many pointed to the arrival of The Pill as the main factor in the "liberation" of women. I think the idea can be applied to the notion of universal health care, no one ever talked about that 100 years ago but there have been so many technological strides made.
jakenewton July 30th, 2009 11:51 pm: I feel like a psychiatrist. I should send you a bill.
"It makes logical sense for someone who has had an abortion and comes later to understand in her mind that abortion is the same as murder to be upset about it," you say. That's exactly my point: if you accept "life begins at conception" (LBAC), you're trapped in a very unpleasant position by logic. Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") feels bad about her abortion, and her role in Roe v. Wade, because logically, given her belief in LBAC, she must. She has to pray that God forgives her for her abortion and for enabling the murder of millions of unborn children. She has to apologize to radical opponents of abortion for what she did, and she has to make amends. All this can't be pleasant. It would all be so unnecessary if she had religious beliefs like those of Siouxrose.
The "girlfriend" you mentioned was probably no friend. The issue there was her willingness to go forward without consulting you on such an important matter that involved you as much as her. It was wise to discontinue the relationship because of that. And sure, you found her flippant attitude toward aborting her own fetus disturbing. If she later found someone who wouldn't react that way, so be it.
"What about the idea that a doctrine, religious or not, should perhaps ring as truth in one's heart? Looking towards a ‘happy' result may be at odds with ‘truth.'" What I see is people succumbing to a religious belief (LBAC) indoctrinated into them. Religious doctrines often ring true because of the fervent propaganda of other believers. It doesn't have to be so. Why not listen to Siouxrose instead of Richard Lamb, Randall Terry, the Pope, etc.? (I hope I'm not laying too much on Siouxrose.) Or better yet, follow my fervent recommendation: stop relying on religious belief to answer questions like, when does a human individual become a person?
"I wonder about the role that advancement of technology plays." Actually, I think it's a very important role. In Biblical times (before LBAC, that is), we couldn't visualize a fetus in the womb until nearly the earliest point of viability outside the womb. Seeing that little creature wiggling around in the womb, appearing to have mental and physical capabilities a couple of months after conception, has changed a lot. Before we could do that, people didn't think fetuses were really alive before they became "quick" -- started to perceptibly move around in the womb. Remember, abortions weren't generally illegal until the 1800's. To quote Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade:
"It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman's life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century."
I don't think the advent of safe abortion procedures made that much difference in how people view the subject. If the procedures had been available 2,000 years ago, I'm sure they would have been used to avoid unwanted pregnancies unless/until some religious zealot intervened. The liberation brought about by the pill freed couples from unwanted pregnancies in a much more desirable manner than abortions. Again, how would that change people's attitudes toward abortions?
Universal health care is another topic, one not closely related to abortion.
"I feel like a psychiatrist. I should send you a bill."
Thanks for your post. I'll try to wind it up, then send *you* the bill.
"That's exactly my point: if you accept "life begins at conception" (LBAC), you're trapped in a very unpleasant position by logic."
I agree and understood. I just don't agree that it's "sinister", unless you meant some less used definition of that word. I assume that "someone here is acting sinister" sense is what you mean.
"The "girlfriend" you mentioned was probably no friend."
No she wasn't, we don't always see things clearly as they unfold. The point with her is that women with this attitude exist and may even be common. And it makes me wonder again about the technology, see below.
"What I see is people succumbing to a religious belief (LBAC) indoctrinated into them. Religious doctrines often ring true because of the fervent propaganda of other believers."
It is often this way but not always. And it is often this way with non-religious “religions”. Girlfriend was an avowed feminist, and no doubt was indoctrinated to some degree.
"stop relying on religious belief to answer questions like, when does a human individual become a person?"
One can subscribe to LBAC without religion, as I tend too (not hard and fast that is). There is no religious requirement for that particular belief. Just because one is not religious does not mean that there might not be considerable overlap with the beliefs of those who are.
The general point was that we can't simply use "what would lead to the most pleasant and happy place" as the criteria for truth, i.e., belief of what is true. I think we all have a truth meter down in there, next to the B.S. meter. When we pay attention to these meters, I think we find that many things in life are hard and unpleasant when we deal with them the "right" way, although for most I don't think that means there is no overall happiness.
"Actually, I think it's a very important role."
Very good then.
"abortions weren't generally illegal until the 1800's."
And most any surgery back then was pretty risky. I was referring to how today it's relatively easy, which may lead to attitudes such as the girlfriend above being more common.
"I don't think the advent of safe abortion procedures made that much difference in how people view the subject."
I do, very much.
"The liberation brought about by the pill freed couples from unwanted pregnancies in a much more desirable manner than abortions. Again, how would that change people's attitudes toward abortions?"
Not so much, directly it was about having sex, *ostensibly* with no risk of pregnancy. That was much easier now. But if it messed up or you weren't careful, you have a fairly easy abortion option. By becoming a backup, the pill lead to a different view on abortion I think.
"Universal health care is another topic, one not closely related to abortion."
I think the advanced technology point overlapped. Much more safe and routine therapies and procedures perhaps led to the idea that it should be a right.
See you.
jakenewton August 1st, 2009 4:22 pm: By now it's probably down to the two of us, but I appreciate the chance to respond nonetheless.
I looked up "sinister" in Webster's and think it fits pretty well my intention. "Singularly evil or productive of evil;. . . accompanied by or leading to disaster; . . ." The word "suggests a general or vague feeling of fear or apprehension on the part of the observer . . ." I think LBAC has produced evil (murder of doctors; prevention of abortions in cases of rape or incest; etc.), but the religious connotation of "evil" isn't what I have in mind. I have a feeling of apprehension that LBAC, if it continues to gain acceptance, will lead to disaster directly, and by setting a precedent for encoding purely religious doctrines into law. Other words could be used, such as psychologically damaging, unhealthy, poisonous, or toxic.
I've had a few people tell me that LBAC isn't necessarily a religious doctrine. Empirically, nearly everyone who espouses it admits doing so out of religious belief. I don't think there are rational reasons to consider it murder to destroy a human egg a day or two after it's fertilized, or even well into pregnancy before the individual has any capacity for memory. I think belief that an incorporeal soul becomes associated with a fetus at conception is by far the most common basis for LBAC. The theory that born human beings have souls, let alone souls that pre-existed conception, that somehow join the body at conception, or that survive death, isn't susceptible to scientific confirmation or proof. So I put it in the realm of religion. If not that, then maybe fantasy or myth. If you want to say you believe in LBAC for non-religious reasons, that's your privilege, but you're not persuading me.
I should disclose that I actually consider myself religious, but not a believer in any organized church. "Choosing" religious beliefs that result in serenity (happiness) is invariably reported by people who become associated with a religion that wasn't imposed of them by their parents. Similarly, people leave religions that were imposed on them because the religions failed to bring them happiness. I have no trouble advising people that they don't have to continue to believe religious dogma or follow the instructions of religious leaders. We're all too familiar with the bizarre beliefs of cults that sometimes directly result in mass suicide, murders, sexual crimes, etc. One of the most painful experiences for me is witnessing someone drop into depression because of the belief that God will not forgive him or her, or because of being unable to conform to unreasonable religious dictates.
Finally, the changes in attitudes about abortion resulting from the availability of safe procedures or the pill seem to me more related to how much of a chance you take of getting pregnant than whether and in what circumstances abortion is permissible or not.
We can continue this the next time abortion comes up in CD. It's been nice talking with you.
"I looked up "sinister""
OK then.
"I've had a few people tell me that LBAC isn't necessarily a religious doctrine."
I talked to one last night, while relating our discussion. "So, does life begin at conception?" I asked "Absolutely"! He replied. But he went on to say that he didn't really believe in sin (he is completely atheist) and added that he thought a term like "murder" is something of an abstraction.
"Empirically, nearly everyone who espouses it admits doing so out of religious belief."
Given the facts about DNA combining at that point, I don't see how it can't be purely scientific.
"I don't think there are rational reasons to consider it murder to destroy a human egg a day or two after it's fertilized,"
And personally I have no problem with that, but harkening back to my original points you can't ignore those who do, a belief that I think can be rationalized. But back to my friend who is pretty astute I think. The reason he thinks of murder, as an abstraction of little use is that he believes all stigma against it, including in law, stem from the personal wish of individuals that they not be killed. So when you get down to brass tacks, this is all philosophical.
""Choosing" religious beliefs that result in serenity (happiness) is invariably reported by people who become associated with a religion that wasn't imposed of them by their parents."
I have no doubt of the above.
"Similarly, people leave religions that were imposed on them because the religions failed to bring them happiness"
Do doubt.
And just in case it wasn't clear, it seems at least a bit reckless to me to not be concerned directly about the "truth" of your belief, and ultimately the only test I know is your truth meter.
"I have no trouble advising people that they don't have to continue to believe religious dogma or follow the instructions of religious leaders."
One should at least ask questions.
"It's been nice talking with you."
I think we have reached a quiescent point. 'later!
"As we're seeing here, abortion is one of those perfect wedge issues "
I tend to agree, there has been no change whatever between the two most extreme sides of the issue in decades.
"One either thinks abortion is a medical procedure to be decided on by a woman and her doctor, or is an offense against God which must be proscribed by law. There is no middle ground and, therefore, no hope of reaching a middle ground through debate."
I completely disagree. I think that most people are in the middle, finding the procedure repugnant in many cases but reluctantly agreeing that a woman should have the right. In my own case, I think the woman has a right simply because I cannot determine the proper role of government in the situation and probably never will. The limited government role idea should in turn appeal to those claiming to be conservatives. Pro choice folks have potential for making ground in this manner but they'll never do it with bumper stickers directed at the other extreme.
Sioux Rose
JETHRO: Although the numbers may not be on the radar, those of us who believe in reincarnation recognize that sometimes the "return to sender" is the most humane approach. What I mean is that the SOUL is immortal, and the birth vessel and phase of opportunity (Mother is ill/Mother was raped and would not love the child in a healthy way/war is underway and Mother has been exposed to dangerous chemicals/Family is impoverished and cannot afford another baby, etc.) may not warrant even bottom-line acceptable condtions that favor life. Nature aborts all the time, by the way. There are a great many aspects to this debate; however, what is being supposedly killed I think of more in terms of denying--for the present--the VEHICLE through which a soul can take on the experience of life in a body. Given the birth rate on this planet, the soul can pick up another "bakery number," although possibly not with its intended channel. We are eternal spirits that take on bodies over and over again in the LONG evolutionary process of becoming more like that which Created us. Call it Light mixed with Love, or an energy that is ultimately Creative. As we evolve our understanding of that Creative Presence evolves with us, lest we remain crippled by patriarchal or similar authoritarian modes of conditioning. These generally function to keep free will under wraps, and retard the growth potentials of all sentient beings.
hi Siouxrose
i have a theory that there's a limited amount of soul stuff. when there were fewer people, they had enough soul to talk with the animals, with rocks and with water.
as we keep on producing more bodies, the soul stuff gets spread thinner and thinner, until we start cranking out simulacra like ted bundy or dick cheney.
note for Jethro T: there's another gap, the one between people who generally think government ought not to be in the business of enforcing religious dogma, and those who long for a return to the auto de fe. unlike the issue at hand, there might be a few points of agreement, highly case-specific, but not many.
Sioux Rose
SPAD: Interesting theory. My understanding--and this comes from Cayce, The Seth Material, and the Hindu count of time as the long Yugas--is that people were once less ensconced in flesh, or dense materialism. Consciousness was more "elastic" and could enter into other living things, so that a sort of thought-based/empathic communion was the norm. THAT has been lost. Persons like myself still have some of that mystical empathy. Children born with it are generally taught to shut this level of sentience down. There are studies of lost languages, but few understand that a whole realm of perception has also been nearly lost. Thank you for a creative, out-of-the-box thinking-style post.
"as we keep on producing more bodies, the soul stuff gets spread thinner and thinner, until we start cranking out simulacra like ted bundy or dick cheney."
That's evident in India and Japan where the population is dense enough to make it more difficult for society to succeed. My parents' country of India is nothing like what it used to be like before the population growth exploding after Gandhi's passing away.
The "pro-life" side is just a twisted faction outside pro-choice which would include real pro-lifers. Like I said, pro-choice already tried to work things out but the other side couldn't be reasoned with. We are now finding out that the same misnamed "pro-life" side is in bed with wars, big insurance and drug companies poisoning for profit, anti-education zealots, pro-gun forces, and virtually everything against life. That's not pro-life, it's pro-death. The misnamed "pro-lifers" are losing their credibility as a result. Look it up on google and see for yourself.
"Like I said, pro-choice already tried to work things out but the other side couldn't be reasoned with."
I know you said so but you never supported it. I'll read your response.
"Look it up on google and see for yourself."
You misunderstand the limitations of search engines.
So name me one search engine that beats google and it better not be one that charges.
"So name me one search engine that beats google and it better not be one that charges."
You are missing the point. You stated that "The misnamed "pro-lifers" are losing their credibility " and that I could "Look it up on Google". Search engines do nothing more than take a character string as input and provide a bunch of links to web pages as output. They are incapable of outputting a debatable idea like " "pro-lifers" are losing their credibility ", it is up to the human operator to interpret the output of the search engine. What you should have done instead was make some specific reference to some article that you think made the case. "Google it yourself" always means "I don't feel up to my responsibility to back up what I stated".
Writing from Tennessee, I'm not sure it's ok to discuss "you know what", especially before dark. That Patriot Act has a lot of clauses I haven't read yet.
I wish Tim Ryan all the luck. There's not much room for an intelligent 'pro lifer'.
Christina Page: "are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people's lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so."
Well now, pretty simple choice, that you say the great majority of Joe Six Pack Americans have made with their "pro-contraception" choices. Even a caveman (with apologies to the Geico boys) could figure out that one. But popular wisdom is no guarantee of public policy, as we know from the "health care reform" fiasco now proceeding like a weed-clogged wave toward its demise in Congress. One might as well say:
"Are you are pro-universal health care, therefore trying to institute a single payer system to provide for all medical needs of all people---or are you pro-universal health care and supporting the efforts of the cave ladies and gentlemen whose caves are the halls of Congress and the White House, in fabricating a "guaranteed to fail" extremely complex system with "options" and "exceptions" galore through which the medical industry can drive its Mack truck on its destination of greed, on the wish or the hope that it will somehow produce a result that it's highly unlikely to produce?"
If the average person has caught on that wishin' and hopin' you won't get pregnant if you have sex without contraception is just plain crazy, dude, then why is so much of the public, of all ideological stripes, willing to go along with things like a health care system unlikely to produce health care, stimulus economic packages that don't stimulate very much, expensive "defense" weapons that don't produce very much in the way of actual defense, a "peace process" that generates hostility and not peace, and so on and on? There's an alternative version of the story of the "little engine that could" which teaches that his "I think I can" won't get him to the top of the hill if he starts out without adequate fuel to get there.
I hope my comment won't be seen as too "off topic," as the master "topic" of our time ought to be about finding the intelligence and courage to do what has to be done to accomplish the better lives that we want to have.
Not to mention the media figures who are rallying against healthcare reform by focusing on whether abortion will be covered by it.
So, who's going along with all the crap you mention? I'm fucking mad as hell and I think plenty of others are too. This whole health care debacle, while not unexpected, makes me sick to my stomach. I'm so tired to getting screwed, and my poor sphincter muscle is just about worn out.
Ahh, now we get down to it. It ISN'T about Pro-Life. It IS all about Gender Slavery - the "females" have no right to refuse pregnancy and without economic and biological self-determination, the "female" is a slave, property...and that's what the Fundies have always wanted. After all, according to the flat-earth, fixed creation holy books of the make believe space giant from the ME, the bitches brought EVIL into the world and this is their punishment by the genocidal blood god, right? It all runs very tight with Authoritarian Patriarchy, (White) Male Supremacy, Constant War, and feral blood drinking Oligarchy. Very 12th Century. But then so is our Roman Slave Republic ruled by feral blood drinking patrician clans of inherited wealth....
I've long thought that people who want to criminalize abortion AND criminalize birth control had an agenda that had nothing to do with valuing life. It is nice to hear someone from the socially conservative aisle who also sees their position is nonsensical.
The pro-life movement always was pro-death. The rank and file, if not the activists, would stand consistently for the death penalty for murderers, rapists, robbers, crackheads, jaywalkers, people who consistently didn't come to church on time,...
Then there's the N-weapons business. These pro-life rank-and-file just love their little rubble-bouncers, thousands upon thousands of them.
Then there's war. These guys really stand up for dirty little wars.
The next split has to do with "Thou shall not steal". Do you think that even one of their Republican leaders believes in a God who would issue such a laughable commandment?
So now they're splitting on the prevention of conception too. This time the rank and file are mostly using condoms, foam and the pill, as in, what, you think I'm crazy like Octomom? The Republican leaders see nothing wrong with contraception. It's the church hierarchy who demands that every woman crank out 20 kids, every single generation until Kingdom come, which had better come really quick at this population-exploding pace. Get back in that house, gurrl!
"The pro-life movement always was pro-death. The rank and file, if not the activists, would stand consistently for the death penalty for murderers, rapists, robbers, crackheads, jaywalkers, people who consistently didn't come to church on time,..."
No moral equivalent. Capital punishment is for people guilty of something, a baby/fetus has no such guilt. There is nothing I have ever heard in any pro life movement that even addresses capital punishment. Saying that some individual who you know is pro life is also pro capital punishment is nothing more than a reckless guess on your part unless you have information to the contrary.
"a baby/fetus has no such guilt."
What about the Christian (I forget which branch) idea of original sin?
Edit: And wasn't there a big deal in the Catholic Church a couple years ago because it used to say that babies/fetuses that aren't baptized don't get into heaven? Must be some guilt there then.
"What about the Christian (I forget which branch) idea of original sin?"
Nobody ever applied capital punishment to those so guilty.
"babies/fetuses that aren't baptized don't get into heaven"
They went to Limbo, where they waited until Judgement day for entry to Heaven, if I recall correctly.