We fail to understand the extremity of the "pro-life" position!

Reading the recent thread on abortion, it became clear to me that many people do not understand how extreme the "pro-life" position is. If you treat the fertilized egg as if it were a person deserving full protection of the law, that logically leads not just to banning abortion, but also:

* Banning any contraceptive that potentially prevents impantation, including the pill.

* Banning a wide variety of other medicines that also have this as a side effect.

* Banning fertility treatments that create multiple zygotes through in vitro fertilization, many of which are later discarded.

* Banning any form of therapeutic cloning.

* Bringing the weight of the law to bear on women's monthly cycle. Somewhere between a third and a half of all zygotes naturally fail to implant. What measures become desirable, if we view these as people?

This extreme view needs rational and effective opposition. Yes, we each have a biological origin. But that does not mean that we need to hold that biological beginning in particular reverence. An abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, when the fetus has not even developed a functioning nervous system, is not a tragic and sad choice. It simply is a choice. We need to stop nodding our heads in emotional agreement that there is anything innately unfortunate in people making choices over these reproductive stages. That gives too much power to the fetus fetishists, before discussion even begins, and allows the extremity of the "pro-life" position gain a semblance of normality.

someone is planning to reduce world population by 4 billion using DNA sequencing? eh?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Any links? I'm a sucker for conspiracy theories.

Micro-biologists are kicking the bucket in unnatural ways. Why they're getting off'd is the big question.

Many true pro-life people are not at the extremes you mentioned, and would rather see it as legal/safe/rare than illegal/common/dangerous. Things like sex education, contraception, RU 648, etc are fine with people like this, as they will greatly reduce the number of abortions. You're never going to get the far right (the extreme that you mentioned), but some of the moderates will be willing to listen. The key is getting the message across clearly, as (like you said), there needs to be rational and effective opposition.

I don't understand why there are significant ethical and legal differences between an abortifacient and a surgical abortion. Can you explain that to me?

That and the child has almost no time to develop at all. Not even the most basic awareness.

The six week fetus is the same, whether aborted using RU486 or a vaccuum aspirator. Yes, I agree, at that stage, it's pretty ridiculous even to debate the personhood or moral importance to the fetus. As I wrote, terminating a pregnancy at that stage is just a choice.

As to the "less invasive," yes, there are medical advantages to the use of RU486. But I'm not sure how that has any ethical ramifications. If a six-week pregnant woman chooses surgical abortion, because a pre-existing condition counterindicates RU486, does that in any way present an ethical dilemma that she would not face if able to use RU486?

My understanding was that RU486 prevents viability, whereas surgical abortions occur later on. Someone had posted earlier how the far right has blurred the lines, which is what I think is causing all the confusion.

If I recall correctly, it can be used through the ninth week. It is an alternative to surgical abortions in the early stages of pregnancy.

You might be thinking of Plan B, which prevents implantation if taken the day or two after intercourse.

Emergency contraception (a high dose of birth control pills) is taken within 72 hours of intercourse to prevent implantation. RU486 is taken in early pregnancy to induce miscarriage, and a follow-up surgical abortion is sometimes needed if not all tissue is expelled.

The fetophiles like to confuse the two, refering to them both as "the abortion pill."

Sorry 'bout that.

Most of them have a problem with RU486, and were opposed to the FDA approving it, which eventually did happen during Clinton's administration. They are trying to get Bush's administration to rescind that approval.

The freepers are forever citing a case in which a young woman died after taking it. They also continually refer to her as a child, although she was over 18, because her father is suing the clinic that distributed it to her. One of the issues in the case is that the young woman did not seek medical help immediately when she started having complications. Maybe Bush's tort reform plan will end the lawsuit?

Most protestant pro-lifers are not against birth control, at least not for people who are married. During my holiday week, I watched "The 700 Club" one day and Pat was taking questions from letters and such. One was from a woman whose husband wanted to get a vasectomy, but she was afraid that it was forbidden by the Bible. Pat responded "Do you know how many women wish their husbands were willing to get one?" He went on to say that there is nothing in the Bible prohibiting contraception, and that he understood her philosophy about "If God sends us a child, he sends us a child", there's nothing wrong with contraception, unless you're a catholic.

"pro-life" the slogan adopted by the extremeists and the not so exremists religious believers, and on the other hand, are fully and tacitly conjoined with abortion rights and abortion.

Can you explain how that parses out? Doesn't that make your mind run in circles?

Once more, as in the "support the troops" meme, people have succumbed to sloganism and in this case it is "pro-life" and nothing could be more amusing when those very same persons approve of abortion.

Those people you mentioned are "PRO-CHOICE' and not PRO-LIFE.

first trimester abortions make sense, but.... losing babies that same age that I wanted so desperately to have... WAS very tragic and devestating. Fortunately, my spiritual beliefs have room for me to understand that the two children I have now may very well be the two I originally could not carry to term, soul-wise.

If you want to fight the pro-lifers, you will have to start at the root of the problem: their thinking that we only go around once on this earth and either wind up in heaven or hell when our life is ended.

-------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

Yes, I understand that it is tragic to experience a spontaneous abortion when one was hoping to have a child. I think it is important to recognize that desire and hope as functions of the individual and her context, and not something mandated by ethics or law.

eallen wrote: "Reading the recent thread on abortion, it became clear to me that many people do not understand how extreme the "pro-life" position is. If you treat the fertilized egg as if it were a person deserving full protection of the law, that logically leads not just to banning abortion, but also:

* Banning any contraceptive that potentially prevents impantation, including the pill.

* Banning a wide variety of other medicines that also have this as a side effect.

* Banning fertility treatments that create multiple zygotes through in vitro fertilization, many of which are later discarded.

* Banning any form of therapeutic cloning.

* Bringing the weight of the law to bear on women's monthly cycle. Somewhere between a third and a half of all zygotes naturally fail to implant. What measures become desirable, if we view these as people?"

No one, to my knowledge, believes that an unfertized egg is a human. This post is a totally illogical distortion of the pro-life point of view.

At first, I wondered what the heck you were talking about. Then I reread my last point, and realized the typo. Sorry about that.

a "baby" with a soul in some cases, lies the fallacy but those who are shouting take no time to figure that out.

They speak of a "potential" human being and cannot see that logic, So,following their logic, a sperm or an egg is also a "potential" human being.

That argument of potentiality is flawed

scares me.

As a social worker (retired), I can tell you, this society cannot handle the ensuring population growth. The social safety net is collapsing now - any move to curtail reproductive choice would be the end. You would see child abuse, abandonment and neglect rise like you can't imagine right now.

Proof: in the so-called partial birth abortion band legislation there is no exception for the life of the mother.

And yet, bush says we must pass this law because "all life is sacred."

Unless you're a woman who's become pregnant. YOUR life is not sacred. Then you are expendable, and your life is meaningless because you are just a baby factory.

I heard something similar to what you describe and YES that is what they reported - very extreme! I think what I heard was an NPR report. If you have any sources that would be wonderful to share and then we should all share with those that would vote with Shrub.

...abortions should be legal, safe, rare.

But, to equate stem cell research with third trimester abortions is blasphemy, heresy, taking the Lord's name in vain, and shows complete and total theological ignorance. In the balance, stem cell research is pro-life.

AND I AM A "NOMINALLY PRO-LIFE, PRO-STEM CELL RESEARCH, "PERSON OF FAITH"

"To equate stem cell research with third trimester abortions is blasphemy, heresy, taking the Lord's name in vain, and shows complete and total theological ignorance."

Oh, my. As a secular person, my beef with right-wing fundamentalists is only because they endanger our civil liberties. You, on the other hand, have a serious theological dispute with them.

My grand dad (lived in a "side by side" duplex with my grand parents) was a radical left wing fundie clergy man. MLK Jr. and the Berrigans and Michael Lerner were (or "would have been" if he was still alive) "his kind of clergy" -- and we moved left - like far far left - from there.

Many times I've discussed the issue with pro-lifers and their argument devolved into some version of "well if the little slut doesn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have sex". So arguing finer biological points with them is basically a waste of time. What they want is a return to a society where women are under the thumb of men and shamed for being sexual.