FREE TAPATALK APP

Bikewer · 24th January 2012, 04:12 PM

Quite aside from the ethics of abortion, the "beginning of life" arguments, and all that...
I wonder just what the ultimate goal of the pro-life folks might be. What do they expect to happen if, as would seem to be their desire, abortion would be generally outlawed in the US?
At present, we are told there are about 1 million abortions annually in the US. Do the pro-life folks consider that there would be a million more smiling, happy infants born each year?

Or, that perhaps folks would simply not engage in "recreational" sex? That they would only have sex if and when they wanted to procreate? And thus, no unwanted pregnancies...

Throughout history, women who found themselves pregnant and did not have the desire or resources for the child have found ways to abort the pregnancy or to dispose of the child, frequently by infanticide.
It occurs to me that the "one million" figure might well be largely accounted for by the failure rate of contraception, which we are told hovers around 1 per cent even with good practices. I would speculate that a rather large percentage of that one million figure might be due simply to contraceptive failure rather than frivolous termination of pregnancies, which is how the pro-life crowd portrays it.

Do the pro-lifers feel that a return to "back alley" abortions would be a good thing? That women of means would simply go elsewhere, like Mexico or Canada (we can be sure there would be a booming obstetrics business...) while poor women would use unsafe methods or carry the unwanted child to term where any number of unlovely circumstances might come into play? (abandonment, infanticide, illegal baby-brokering....)

The adoption system is already strained, we are told. A quantum increase in unwanted children would strain it further...

I listened to several young people who were participating in the latest pro-life march in Washington on NPR. All wanted Roe V.Wade overturned. None seemed to have any notion of the implications...

NewtonTrino · 24th January 2012, 04:32 PM

They don't think like that. Outcomes are not considered factually but through ideology.

There would be more religious "purity" around. If that means coathangar abortions and all the other craziness that comes with making abortion illegal they don't care.

Same thing with making drugs illegal. It's blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that making drugs illegal kills and hurts more people than having a bunch of people using drugs. They don't care. It's not about outcome, it's about ideology. They don't have an "end game".

Caper · 24th January 2012, 04:37 PM

I would think many prolifers believe human life deserves rights before birth. I am one of those people. Where those rights begin would probably very greatly amongst prolifers. Some think a human is a human when the are a single cell, and deserve all the rights humans should have (I do not). I guess the end goal for most prolifers is that human life (as they see it) be given legal protection. For the most prolife of prolifers.... That would pretty much mean an absolute ban on abortion. I don't think many prolifers would fit into that category though.

Sam.I.Am · 24th January 2012, 04:41 PM

I am all for abortions up through the ninth trimester. Does that make me a bad person?

TragicMonkey · 24th January 2012, 05:04 PM

I suspect the thinking is let all pregnancies be carried to term, then God will sort out the baby from there. And if it has a miserable life, well, that's God's plan for it!

Although if God were against abortion, surely He could stop it. What with having omnipotence, omnicognizance, and omnipresence. He really doesn't have many excuses left for not implementing His own will, does He?

yodaluver28 · 24th January 2012, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Quite aside from the ethics of abortion, the "beginning of life" arguments, and all that...
I wonder just what the ultimate goal of the pro-life folks might be. What do they expect to happen if, as would seem to be their desire, abortion would be generally outlawed in the US?

The vast majority of people who want abortion outlawed don't see it as the endgame but as one component of a social agenda that would include national implementation of abstinence-only sex "education", repeal of gay rights and equality and perhaps creating criminal penalties for homosexuality, and the cultural shaming of women who are unmarried, working, sexually active, and/or childless. In a nutshell, the creation of a culture in which all social behavior is judged and controlled by a religious right-wing government and it's supporters.

Originally Posted by Bikewer

At present, we are told there are about 1 million abortions annually in the US. Do the pro-life folks consider that there would be a million more smiling, happy infants born each year?

That's pretty much how they see it, yeah.

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Or, that perhaps folks would simply not engage in "recreational" sex? That they would only have sex if and when they wanted to procreate? And thus, no unwanted pregnancies...

Again, yeah. They think that with enough abstinence-only education, no talk of condoms or birth control, and government control over sexual images in the media, sex can be all but eliminated except under circumstances that they deem acceptable.

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Do the pro-lifers feel that a return to "back alley" abortions would be a good thing?

I'm sure some do. I've actually heard extremists say things like "any woman who would abort their baby deserves to die in an alley" and worse, so that argument wouldn't affect the hard-core activists at all.

Originally Posted by Bikewer

That women of means would simply go elsewhere, like Mexico or Canada (we can be sure there would be a booming obstetrics business...) while poor women would use unsafe methods or carry the unwanted child to term where any number of unlovely circumstances might come into play? (abandonment, infanticide, illegal baby-brokering....)

When has economic inequality and it's effects on the poor ever bothered the right wing? That's what we're dealing with here, a religious right that sees the rich as anointed by God and better than the poor and thus deserving of access to privileges that others aren't. If their teenage daughter gets pregnant, it's a special case and an abortion a necessity but for anyone else it's an abortion is either frivolous or a moral outrage. It's hypocrisy pure and simple.

Originally Posted by Bikewer

The adoption system is already strained, we are told. A quantum increase in unwanted children would strain it further...

I listened to several young people who were participating in the latest pro-life march in Washington on NPR. All wanted Roe V.Wade overturned. None seemed to have any notion of the implications...

Most of them were raised in families that believed that if only the religious right social agenda could be implemented, all the "unholy" goings-on in this country would be eliminated and the issue wouldn't even come up anymore. They don't think there will be any long-term implications, at least not for the "good" people.

Verde · 24th January 2012, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

I am all for abortions up through the ninth trimester. Does that make me a bad person?

Not if you feed them to the dogs.

V.

joesixpack · 24th January 2012, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

They don't think like that. Outcomes are not considered factually but through ideology.

Jesus I wish I could think that clearly all the time. I was trying to compose (in my mind) a response to the question. It was going to be a billion word essay that would have said no more than that.

Yes, this is all about ideology, and nothing to do with the material world.

Edited to add, This is certainly the case for the religious right. There are a tiny minority of pro-lifers out there with a more nuanced view of the issue.

Puppycow · 24th January 2012, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Or, that perhaps folks would simply not engage in "recreational" sex? That they would only have sex if and when they wanted to procreate? And thus, no unwanted pregnancies...

Some pro-lifers are also against recreational sex, sex outside of marriage, and contraception. As a practical matter, assuming that abortion were illegal but contraception remained legal, people could still have recreational sex if they accept the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, a risk which which can be minimized if you are careful.

Quote:

The adoption system is already strained, we are told. A quantum increase in unwanted children would strain it further...

Although in the case of newborns, I hear, the demand exceeds the supply. It's older kids who have trouble finding people willing to adopt.

Bikewer · 24th January 2012, 06:34 PM

I have heard it said that the pro-life movement is actually an anti-sex movement. That sex is for making babies, period. "Unwanted" children are the wages of sin, as it were.

I am surprised that (to my knowledge) no one has challenged anti-abortion laws on separation grounds.
In that views about the "beginning of life" and the sanctity thereof are religiously-informed views, and that imposing them on the general population would amount to establishment...

Caper · 24th January 2012, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by yodaluver28

The vast majority of people who want abortion outlawed don't see it as the endgame but as one component of a social agenda that would include national implementation of abstinence-only sex "education", repeal of gay rights and equality and perhaps creating criminal penalties for homosexuality, and the cultural shaming of women who are unmarried, working, sexually active, and/or childless. In a nutshell, the creation of a culture in which all social behavior is judged and controlled by a religious right-wing government

Yes. And I think the vast majority of prochoice people and their supporters want abortion extended to people who are under the age of 10. Of course they also want their meat available in restaurants. But this is only a small part of the prochoice agenda. They are want to force all children into homosexual relationships.... Well and basically ban heterosexuality in general (with the exception of producing enough children for human consumption of course)..... They also will demand full rights for pedophiles who they believe should be allowed to have sex with children below the age of 10 (when they become human).

joesixpack · 24th January 2012, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Although in the case of newborns, I hear, the demand exceeds the supply. It's older kids who have trouble finding people willing to adopt.

Yes, this. It is very easy to find adoptive parents for a newborn. Older children are generally harder to place.

The foster system is actually evolving in a good way to allow a child to be placed with foster parents yet still maintain contact with the birth mother (or father, or both) as a sort of "team parenting" system to allow troubled parents time and space to work out the problems that got their children taken away from them in the first place. Sadly, most of the parents in the foster parenting system are of two categories, people who simply want the monthly check or very church-y christian do-gooders. Not to belittle the work of those who wish to do good, but I really wish more secular humanists were keen on foster parenting.

Sam.I.Am · 24th January 2012, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I have heard it said that the pro-life movement is actually an anti-sex movement. That sex is for making babies, period. "Unwanted" children are the wages of sin, as it were.

I am surprised that (to my knowledge) no one has challenged anti-abortion laws on separation grounds.
In that views about the "beginning of life" and the sanctity thereof are religiously-informed views, and that imposing them on the general population would amount to establishment...

On the first point I'd have to say that when life starts is a purely subjective opinion. There is a logic to the position that life starts as soon as the first cells split if for no other reason that at that point, if left alone, it will become a human being. Your second point is also not religion based if for no other reason than there are plenty of non-religious people who also believe in the sanctity of life. It is not exclusively a religious value.

applecorped · 24th January 2012, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

I am all for abortions up through the ninth trimester. Does that make me a bad person?

I'm for abortion through the 1200th month. After that though, no dice.

Caper · 24th January 2012, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

On the first point I'd have to say that when life starts is a purely subjective opinion.

What if you believe life doesn't start until 50?

Sam.I.Am · 24th January 2012, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Caper

What if you believe life doesn't start until 50?

Well that's a bit beyond the ninth trimester so I would have a problem with that...

Darth Rotor · 24th January 2012, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I suspect the thinking is let all pregnancies be carried to term, then God will sort out the baby from there. And if it has a miserable life, well, that's God's plan for it!

Although if God were against abortion, surely He could stop it. What with having omnipotence, omnicognizance, and omnipresence. He really doesn't have many excuses left for not implementing His own will, does He?

He seems to have delegated some of it to a lower level of management, yes?

Almo · 25th January 2012, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by yodaluver28

Again, yeah. They think that with enough abstinence-only education, no talk of condoms or birth control, and government control over sexual images in the media, sex can be all but eliminated except under circumstances that they deem acceptable.

For someone to believe this, their experience of sex must be a completely different one from what mine is. It's just not going to go away. Silly people.

sadhatter · 25th January 2012, 11:32 AM

The just don't give a ****.

They are like kids who ask their parents why they can't just buy them the new toy with a credit card if they don't have the cash. All they know is they want something, and damn the consequences.

And that is what religion does, it gives people X number of things they can be irrational about, and have the protection from folks calling them out on said ideas, because of religious tolerance.

Crossbow · 25th January 2012, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Quite aside from the ethics of abortion, the "beginning of life" arguments, and all that...
I wonder just what the ultimate goal of the pro-life folks might be. What do they expect to happen if, as would seem to be their desire, abortion would be generally outlawed in the US?
At present, we are told there are about 1 million abortions annually in the US. Do the pro-life folks consider that there would be a million more smiling, happy infants born each year?

Or, that perhaps folks would simply not engage in "recreational" sex? That they would only have sex if and when they wanted to procreate? And thus, no unwanted pregnancies...

Throughout history, women who found themselves pregnant and did not have the desire or resources for the child have found ways to abort the pregnancy or to dispose of the child, frequently by infanticide.
It occurs to me that the "one million" figure might well be largely accounted for by the failure rate of contraception, which we are told hovers around 1 per cent even with good practices. I would speculate that a rather large percentage of that one million figure might be due simply to contraceptive failure rather than frivolous termination of pregnancies, which is how the pro-life crowd portrays it.

Do the pro-lifers feel that a return to "back alley" abortions would be a good thing? That women of means would simply go elsewhere, like Mexico or Canada (we can be sure there would be a booming obstetrics business...) while poor women would use unsafe methods or carry the unwanted child to term where any number of unlovely circumstances might come into play? (abandonment, infanticide, illegal baby-brokering....)

The adoption system is already strained, we are told. A quantum increase in unwanted children would strain it further...

I listened to several young people who were participating in the latest pro-life march in Washington on NPR. All wanted Roe V.Wade overturned. None seemed to have any notion of the implications...

This is an excellent question because I really do not think that they have figured it out either.

> I have talked to some pro-life people who want a total ban on abortions.

> I have talked to other pro-life people who support abortions only in the case of rape, incest, or due to serious health issues for the mother.

> I have talked to other pro-life people who want the individual States to decide just what is permissible regarding abortions (note: this is usually the stance give by most pro-life politicians as well).

So sorry! But since the pro-life people do not know what they want, then I cannot tell you what they want either.

Travis · 25th January 2012, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Caper

What if you believe life doesn't start until 50?

I'd ask to see the heart/lung machine they used to keep the braindead body viable for fifty years.

When "life" begins is not a point of contention. When it becomes a "person" with all the rights of a sentient being is in contention.

kbm99 · 25th January 2012, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Bikewer

I have heard it said that the pro-life movement is actually an anti-sex movement. That sex is for making babies, period. "Unwanted" children are the wages of sin, as it were.

This strikes me as exactly correct. While many mainstream anti-choice voters might well be contented with the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the hardcore movement types would then progress to call for the abolition of contraception. This is certainly Rick Santorum's aim - not only the end of abortion, but the end of contraception and non-procreative sex.

kbm99 · 25th January 2012, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

On the first point I'd have to say that when life starts is a purely subjective opinion. There is a logic to the position that life starts as soon as the first cells split if for no other reason that at that point, if left alone, it will become a human being.

Actually, at that point, it hasn't even implanted in the uterine wall yet, and its fate is very much uncertain. What is certain is that, if "left alone" it certainly will not become a human being, as it absolutely requires the mother's body as a host for the next nine months. Or perhaps less in the event of medical intervention, but again that hardly qualifies as being "left alone."

cwalner · 25th January 2012, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by kbm99

This strikes me as exactly correct. While many mainstream anti-choice voters might well be contented with the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the hardcore movement types would then progress to call for the abolition of contraception. This is certainly Rick Santorum's aim - not only the end of abortion, but the end of contraception and non-procreative sex.

They can pry my condom from my cold dead ...

maybe I should phrase that differently.

Zelenius · 25th January 2012, 02:34 PM

It's funny, I was thinking of asking the same question on this forum. What I am wondering is if the religious fanatics overturn Roe V Wade, would they want women who have illegal abortions to be charged with murder, along with the abortionist? I'm sure at least a few of them would.

Another thing I'll never understand are the anti-abortion fanatics who are also against all contraception, although I have met a few right-wing Christians who are anti-abortion but are very much in favor of birth control(these more reasonable pro-lifers are pretty rare). If it wasn't for contraception, there would be far more abortions every year. But so few of them understand this. I don't think pro-lifers understand much of anything to be honest. Even the concept of "the lesser of two evils" seems completely alien to most of them, since even if I could accept that abortion is evil, using contraception would be a far lesser evil. And more importantly, something that can be used to prevent the far greater evil.

The "end point" for them is really just some Christian Totalitarian Theocracy in the U.S, "returning" this country to something it never was and was never meant to be.

Sam.I.Am · 25th January 2012, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by kbm99

Actually, at that point, it hasn't even implanted in the uterine wall yet, and its fate is very much uncertain. What is certain is that, if "left alone" it certainly will not become a human being, as it absolutely requires the mother's body as a host for the next nine months. Or perhaps less in the event of medical intervention, but again that hardly qualifies as being "left alone."

Fair enough on the first point, I didn't say the logic was unassailable but only that there was a certain logic to it. I disagree on your second point though. The obvious meaning of "left alone" in the context of the OP clearly means not having an abortion (left alone) as opposed to having an abortion (not being left alone). That I even have to point this out does not bolster your position but does make it look a bit pedantic in nature.

Bikewer · 25th January 2012, 02:50 PM

Stephen Jay Gould had a nice answer to the question, "when does life begin?.

"About 3.5 billion years ago."

cambion · 25th January 2012, 03:06 PM

I believe the "end point" of the pro-life movement is simply to have abortion outlawed because they believe it's murder. I don't think there's (broadly speaking, I'm sure there are exceptions) a very nuanced argument addressing the fact that abortions may actually INCREASE if it were outlawed. My guess is that they would deny that fact if confronted with it, and blame the women having the "back alley" abortions if they were somehow forced to face the reality of the situation.

The fact that it it would no longer be legally legitimate seems to be morally acceptable to them, regardless of whether or not it would actually decrease abortions. There's nothing remotely Utilitarian about their stance.

joesixpack · 25th January 2012, 03:51 PM

It's important to remember how the abortion issue is used by the right. Abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, and a dozen other inflammatory distractions are the issues with which the Republican party is capable of mobilizing millions of voters. It should be quite plain to the most casual observer what the GOP actually wants simply by looking at what they actually accomplish, and it has nothing to do with pro-life. What they actually want is further deregulation and further concentration of wealth and power into a smaller and smaller segment of society. They spend their time in Washington DC doing the work they deem most important.

They have little or no intention of actually overturning Roe v. Wade, and would shrink from the opportunity should it ever present itself. No, the issue is too valuable to them as a tool with which to win votes. Of course, the churches are completely complicit in this as well. They've been steering their congregations to the ballot box for decades now. The time spent rehashing the same tired arguments about abortion is time spent NOT actually looking at issues of real importance. It also prevents the left from mounting any sort of defense of civil liberties, worker protections, and social safety nets. They have to constantly devote time to the pointless debate over abortion.

Caper · 25th January 2012, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

It's important to remember how the abortion issue is used by the right. Abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, and a dozen other inflammatory distractions are the issues with which the Republican party is capable of mobilizing millions of voters. It should be quite plain to the most casual observer what the GOP actually wants simply by looking at what they actually accomplish, and it has nothing to do with pro-life. What they actually want is further deregulation and further concentration of wealth and power into a smaller and smaller segment of society. They spend their time in Washington DC doing the work they deem most important.

They have little or no intention of actually overturning Roe v. Wade, and would shrink from the opportunity should it ever present itself. No, the issue is too valuable to them as a tool with which to win votes. Of course, the churches are completely complicit in this as well. They've been steering their congregations to the ballot box for decades now. The time spent rehashing the same tired arguments about abortion is time spent NOT actually looking at issues of real importance. It also prevents the left from mounting any sort of defense of civil liberties, worker protections, and social safety nets. They have to constantly devote time to the pointless debate over abortion.

I don't find it pointless at all. At what point human life deserves protection is a serious issue for me. I do agree with most of your post though.

Caper · 25th January 2012, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

When "life" begins is not a point of contention. When it becomes a "person" with all the rights of a sentient being is in contention.

Agreed.

Caper · 25th January 2012, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Zelenius

Another thing I'll never understand are the anti-abortion fanatics who are also against all contraception, although I have met a few right-wing Christians who are anti-abortion but are very much in favor of birth control(these more reasonable pro-lifers are pretty rare). If it wasn't for contraception, there would be far more abortions every year. .

It's really not hard to understand at all. They believe both are wrong.

It's like asking them if an abuser should use a gun or a knife. They believe both are wrong, though knifes would surely cause less murders...... It in no way means we should promote knifes.

I disagree with their thinking. I'm all for birth control. And agree it would be better for them to embrace birth control if they want to reduce abortions. But I certianly have no problem understanding theior argument.

AvalonXQ · 25th January 2012, 04:53 PM

I'm uncompromisingly anti-abortion. What's my end game? To put society in a position where the rights of the unborn are recognized and abortions are viewed the same as any other infanticide.
I want Roe and Doe overturned or eviscerated and the question of punishment for this act of violence left generally to state criminal law, just as we do for every other act of personal violence.
And if it's true that, in some States criminalizing abortion does not work to prevent abortion, I would not want them to outlaw it. The same is true of other deprivations of human rights, by the way; if you can prove that laws against spousal abuse, rape, or manslaughter actually increase the rate of these activities, we should get rid of the laws. Laws need to be about crime prevention by deterrence, not morality. Can any of you making the utilitarian argument with respect from abortion also confirm that you would agree with legalizing these other acts of violence under the same circumstances?
I also support contraception.

Zelenius · 25th January 2012, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Caper

It's really not hard to understand at all. They believe both are wrong.

It's like asking them if an abuser should use a gun or a knife. They believe both are wrong, though knifes would surely cause less murders...... It in no way means we should promote knifes.

I disagree with their thinking. I'm all for birth control. And agree it would be better for them to embrace birth control if they want to reduce abortions. But I certianly have no problem understanding theior argument.

I can "understand" their position to the extent that I understand it is based on religious dogma. Religious dogmas aren't meant to be understood by both believers and non-believers. On the other hand, these same Christians who are very dogmatic about birth control and abortion are very undogmatic when it comes to other issues, even when they are based on the Bible or 10 commandments, but that's a whole other issue.

AvalonXQ · 25th January 2012, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Zelenius

I can "understand" their position to the extent that I understand it is based on religious dogma.

I don't agree.
Although this is true for some anti-abortion advocates, many base their opposition on a simple belief that human rights, particularly the right to life, extend to the unborn.

Zelenius · 25th January 2012, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm uncompromisingly anti-abortion. What's my end game? To put society in a position where the rights of the unborn are recognized and abortions are viewed the same as any other infanticide.
I want Roe and Doe overturned or eviscerated and the question of punishment for this act of violence left generally to state criminal law, just as we do for every other act of personal violence.
And if it's true that, in some States criminalizing abortion does not work to prevent abortion, I would not want them to outlaw it. The same is true of other deprivations of human rights, by the way; if you can prove that laws against spousal abuse, rape, or manslaughter actually increase the rate of these activities, we should get rid of the laws. Laws need to be about crime prevention by deterrence, not morality. Can any of you making the utilitarian argument with respect from abortion also confirm that you would agree with legalizing these other acts of violence under the same circumstances?
I also support contraception.

So you're against abortion even for incest, rape and to save the life of the mother? At least you're pro-contraception. That's a rarity.

joesixpack · 25th January 2012, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Caper

I don't find it pointless at all. At what point human life deserves protection is a serious issue for me. I do agree with most of your post though.

Maybe that was a bad choice of words. I suppose I mean the the debate is pointless, not because the issue isn't important, but because it is being used as a distraction.

AvalonXQ · 25th January 2012, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Zelenius

On the other hand, these same Christians who are very dogmatic about birth control and abortion are very undogmatic when it comes to other issues, even when they are based on the Bible or 10 commandments, but that's a whole other issue.

The dogmatic views about contraception and abortion you're talking about are doctrines of the RCC, not Bible-based. Catholics are consistent in accepting Church doctrine over the Bible, nor should they be expected to hold to it generally.
Catholicism is not a sola scriptura or Biblical literalist religion.

AvalonXQ · 25th January 2012, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Zelenius

So you're against abortion even for incest, rape and to save the life of the mother?

I'm for recognizing a fetus as having the same rights and protections as a newborn baby. That doesn't mean abortion is always wrong, but it means you must be able to justify it on the same basis that you would justify killing a newborn (which means rape, for instance, is probably not going to cut it).

Quote:

At least you're pro-contraception. That's a rarity.

Not really. A lot of vocal pro-life groups are Catholic-based, but my understanding is a majority of pro-lifers (which make up half the country, remember) are pro-contraception.

Caper · 25th January 2012, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Maybe that was a bad choice of words. I suppose I mean the the debate is pointless, not because the issue isn't important, but because it is being used as a distraction.

I agree. I would also like to point out that most politicians in the GOP that call themselves prolife, aren't really prolife. John McCain is not prolife, he's prochoice, he just personally doesn't like abortion.

24th January 2012, 04:12 PM	#1
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,617	What is the end point of the pro-life movement? Quite aside from the ethics of abortion, the "beginning of life" arguments, and all that... I wonder just what the ultimate goal of the pro-life folks might be. What do they expect to happen if, as would seem to be their desire, abortion would be generally outlawed in the US? At present, we are told there are about 1 million abortions annually in the US. Do the pro-life folks consider that there would be a million more smiling, happy infants born each year? Or, that perhaps folks would simply not engage in "recreational" sex? That they would only have sex if and when they wanted to procreate? And thus, no unwanted pregnancies... Throughout history, women who found themselves pregnant and did not have the desire or resources for the child have found ways to abort the pregnancy or to dispose of the child, frequently by infanticide. It occurs to me that the "one million" figure might well be largely accounted for by the failure rate of contraception, which we are told hovers around 1 per cent even with good practices. I would speculate that a rather large percentage of that one million figure might be due simply to contraceptive failure rather than frivolous termination of pregnancies, which is how the pro-life crowd portrays it. Do the pro-lifers feel that a return to "back alley" abortions would be a good thing? That women of means would simply go elsewhere, like Mexico or Canada (we can be sure there would be a booming obstetrics business...) while poor women would use unsafe methods or carry the unwanted child to term where any number of unlovely circumstances might come into play? (abandonment, infanticide, illegal baby-brokering....) The adoption system is already strained, we are told. A quantum increase in unwanted children would strain it further... I listened to several young people who were participating in the latest pro-life march in Washington on NPR. All wanted Roe V.Wade overturned. None seemed to have any notion of the implications...

24th January 2012, 04:37 PM	#3
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	I would think many prolifers believe human life deserves rights before birth. I am one of those people. Where those rights begin would probably very greatly amongst prolifers. Some think a human is a human when the are a single cell, and deserve all the rights humans should have (I do not). I guess the end goal for most prolifers is that human life (as they see it) be given legal protection. For the most prolife of prolifers.... That would pretty much mean an absolute ban on abortion. I don't think many prolifers would fit into that category though.
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

24th January 2012, 04:41 PM	#4
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,164	I am all for abortions up through the ninth trimester. Does that make me a bad person?
	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar.

24th January 2012, 05:04 PM	#5
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,302	I suspect the thinking is let all pregnancies be carried to term, then God will sort out the baby from there. And if it has a miserable life, well, that's God's plan for it! Although if God were against abortion, surely He could stop it. What with having omnipotence, omnicognizance, and omnipresence. He really doesn't have many excuses left for not implementing His own will, does He?
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

24th January 2012, 05:18 PM	#6
yodaluver28 Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 330	Originally Posted by Bikewer Quite aside from the ethics of abortion, the "beginning of life" arguments, and all that... I wonder just what the ultimate goal of the pro-life folks might be. What do they expect to happen if, as would seem to be their desire, abortion would be generally outlawed in the US? The vast majority of people who want abortion outlawed don't see it as the endgame but as one component of a social agenda that would include national implementation of abstinence-only sex "education", repeal of gay rights and equality and perhaps creating criminal penalties for homosexuality, and the cultural shaming of women who are unmarried, working, sexually active, and/or childless. In a nutshell, the creation of a culture in which all social behavior is judged and controlled by a religious right-wing government and it's supporters. Originally Posted by Bikewer At present, we are told there are about 1 million abortions annually in the US. Do the pro-life folks consider that there would be a million more smiling, happy infants born each year? That's pretty much how they see it, yeah. Originally Posted by Bikewer Or, that perhaps folks would simply not engage in "recreational" sex? That they would only have sex if and when they wanted to procreate? And thus, no unwanted pregnancies... Again, yeah. They think that with enough abstinence-only education, no talk of condoms or birth control, and government control over sexual images in the media, sex can be all but eliminated except under circumstances that they deem acceptable. Originally Posted by Bikewer Do the pro-lifers feel that a return to "back alley" abortions would be a good thing? I'm sure some do. I've actually heard extremists say things like "any woman who would abort their baby deserves to die in an alley" and worse, so that argument wouldn't affect the hard-core activists at all. Originally Posted by Bikewer That women of means would simply go elsewhere, like Mexico or Canada (we can be sure there would be a booming obstetrics business...) while poor women would use unsafe methods or carry the unwanted child to term where any number of unlovely circumstances might come into play? (abandonment, infanticide, illegal baby-brokering....) When has economic inequality and it's effects on the poor ever bothered the right wing? That's what we're dealing with here, a religious right that sees the rich as anointed by God and better than the poor and thus deserving of access to privileges that others aren't. If their teenage daughter gets pregnant, it's a special case and an abortion a necessity but for anyone else it's an abortion is either frivolous or a moral outrage. It's hypocrisy pure and simple. Originally Posted by Bikewer The adoption system is already strained, we are told. A quantum increase in unwanted children would strain it further... I listened to several young people who were participating in the latest pro-life march in Washington on NPR. All wanted Roe V.Wade overturned. None seemed to have any notion of the implications... Most of them were raised in families that believed that if only the religious right social agenda could be implemented, all the "unholy" goings-on in this country would be eliminated and the issue wouldn't even come up anymore. They don't think there will be any long-term implications, at least not for the "good" people.
	__________________ Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. We must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind-Jedi Master Yoda.

24th January 2012, 04:32 PM	#2
NewtonTrino Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bothell, WA Posts: 3,803	They don't think like that. Outcomes are not considered factually but through ideology. There would be more religious "purity" around. If that means coathangar abortions and all the other craziness that comes with making abortion illegal they don't care. Same thing with making drugs illegal. It's blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that making drugs illegal kills and hurts more people than having a bunch of people using drugs. They don't care. It's not about outcome, it's about ideology. They don't have an "end game".

24th January 2012, 05:38 PM	#7
Verde Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Where the jackalopes roam. Posts: 817	Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am I am all for abortions up through the ninth trimester. Does that make me a bad person? Not if you feed them to the dogs. V.
	__________________ It makes sense, if you don't think about it. - T-Mobile ad You're innocent when you dream. - Tom Waits Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool. - Samuel Clemens

24th January 2012, 06:06 PM	#8
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by NewtonTrino They don't think like that. Outcomes are not considered factually but through ideology. Jesus I wish I could think that clearly all the time. I was trying to compose (in my mind) a response to the question. It was going to be a billion word essay that would have said no more than that. Yes, this is all about ideology, and nothing to do with the material world. Edited to add, This is certainly the case for the religious right. There are a tiny minority of pro-lifers out there with a more nuanced view of the issue.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't. Last edited by joesixpack; 24th January 2012 at 06:09 PM.

24th January 2012, 06:25 PM	#9
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,044	Originally Posted by Bikewer Or, that perhaps folks would simply not engage in "recreational" sex? That they would only have sex if and when they wanted to procreate? And thus, no unwanted pregnancies... Some pro-lifers are also against recreational sex, sex outside of marriage, and contraception. As a practical matter, assuming that abortion were illegal but contraception remained legal, people could still have recreational sex if they accept the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, a risk which which can be minimized if you are careful. Quote: The adoption system is already strained, we are told. A quantum increase in unwanted children would strain it further... Although in the case of newborns, I hear, the demand exceeds the supply. It's older kids who have trouble finding people willing to adopt.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

24th January 2012, 06:34 PM	#10
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,617	I have heard it said that the pro-life movement is actually an anti-sex movement. That sex is for making babies, period. "Unwanted" children are the wages of sin, as it were. I am surprised that (to my knowledge) no one has challenged anti-abortion laws on separation grounds. In that views about the "beginning of life" and the sanctity thereof are religiously-informed views, and that imposing them on the general population would amount to establishment...

24th January 2012, 06:41 PM	#11
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by yodaluver28 The vast majority of people who want abortion outlawed don't see it as the endgame but as one component of a social agenda that would include national implementation of abstinence-only sex "education", repeal of gay rights and equality and perhaps creating criminal penalties for homosexuality, and the cultural shaming of women who are unmarried, working, sexually active, and/or childless. In a nutshell, the creation of a culture in which all social behavior is judged and controlled by a religious right-wing government Yes. And I think the vast majority of prochoice people and their supporters want abortion extended to people who are under the age of 10. Of course they also want their meat available in restaurants. But this is only a small part of the prochoice agenda. They are want to force all children into homosexual relationships.... Well and basically ban heterosexuality in general (with the exception of producing enough children for human consumption of course)..... They also will demand full rights for pedophiles who they believe should be allowed to have sex with children below the age of 10 (when they become human).
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

24th January 2012, 06:41 PM	#12
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	Originally Posted by Puppycow Although in the case of newborns, I hear, the demand exceeds the supply. It's older kids who have trouble finding people willing to adopt. Yes, this. It is very easy to find adoptive parents for a newborn. Older children are generally harder to place. The foster system is actually evolving in a good way to allow a child to be placed with foster parents yet still maintain contact with the birth mother (or father, or both) as a sort of "team parenting" system to allow troubled parents time and space to work out the problems that got their children taken away from them in the first place. Sadly, most of the parents in the foster parenting system are of two categories, people who simply want the monthly check or very church-y christian do-gooders. Not to belittle the work of those who wish to do good, but I really wish more secular humanists were keen on foster parenting.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

24th January 2012, 07:01 PM	#13
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,164	Originally Posted by Bikewer I have heard it said that the pro-life movement is actually an anti-sex movement. That sex is for making babies, period. "Unwanted" children are the wages of sin, as it were. I am surprised that (to my knowledge) no one has challenged anti-abortion laws on separation grounds. In that views about the "beginning of life" and the sanctity thereof are religiously-informed views, and that imposing them on the general population would amount to establishment... On the first point I'd have to say that when life starts is a purely subjective opinion. There is a logic to the position that life starts as soon as the first cells split if for no other reason that at that point, if left alone, it will become a human being. Your second point is also not religion based if for no other reason than there are plenty of non-religious people who also believe in the sanctity of life. It is not exclusively a religious value.
	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar. Last edited by Sam.I.Am; 24th January 2012 at 07:02 PM.

24th January 2012, 07:12 PM	#14
applecorped Rotten to the Core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 10,844	Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am I am all for abortions up through the ninth trimester. Does that make me a bad person? I'm for abortion through the 1200th month. After that though, no dice.
	__________________ All You Need Is Love.

24th January 2012, 07:14 PM	#15
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am On the first point I'd have to say that when life starts is a purely subjective opinion. What if you believe life doesn't start until 50?
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

24th January 2012, 07:17 PM	#16
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,164	Originally Posted by Caper What if you believe life doesn't start until 50? Well that's a bit beyond the ninth trimester so I would have a problem with that...
	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar.

24th January 2012, 07:26 PM	#17
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,379	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey I suspect the thinking is let all pregnancies be carried to term, then God will sort out the baby from there. And if it has a miserable life, well, that's God's plan for it! Although if God were against abortion, surely He could stop it. What with having omnipotence, omnicognizance, and omnipresence. He really doesn't have many excuses left for not implementing His own will, does He? He seems to have delegated some of it to a lower level of management, yes?
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

25th January 2012, 10:51 AM	#18
Almo Masterblazer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,414	Originally Posted by yodaluver28 Again, yeah. They think that with enough abstinence-only education, no talk of condoms or birth control, and government control over sexual images in the media, sex can be all but eliminated except under circumstances that they deem acceptable. For someone to believe this, their experience of sex must be a completely different one from what mine is. It's just not going to go away. Silly people.
	__________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia

25th January 2012, 11:32 AM	#19
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743	The just don't give a ****. They are like kids who ask their parents why they can't just buy them the new toy with a credit card if they don't have the cash. All they know is they want something, and damn the consequences. And that is what religion does, it gives people X number of things they can be irrational about, and have the protection from folks calling them out on said ideas, because of religious tolerance.
sadhatter Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 5,743

25th January 2012, 11:58 AM	#20
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,349	Originally Posted by Bikewer Quite aside from the ethics of abortion, the "beginning of life" arguments, and all that... I wonder just what the ultimate goal of the pro-life folks might be. What do they expect to happen if, as would seem to be their desire, abortion would be generally outlawed in the US? At present, we are told there are about 1 million abortions annually in the US. Do the pro-life folks consider that there would be a million more smiling, happy infants born each year? Or, that perhaps folks would simply not engage in "recreational" sex? That they would only have sex if and when they wanted to procreate? And thus, no unwanted pregnancies... Throughout history, women who found themselves pregnant and did not have the desire or resources for the child have found ways to abort the pregnancy or to dispose of the child, frequently by infanticide. It occurs to me that the "one million" figure might well be largely accounted for by the failure rate of contraception, which we are told hovers around 1 per cent even with good practices. I would speculate that a rather large percentage of that one million figure might be due simply to contraceptive failure rather than frivolous termination of pregnancies, which is how the pro-life crowd portrays it. Do the pro-lifers feel that a return to "back alley" abortions would be a good thing? That women of means would simply go elsewhere, like Mexico or Canada (we can be sure there would be a booming obstetrics business...) while poor women would use unsafe methods or carry the unwanted child to term where any number of unlovely circumstances might come into play? (abandonment, infanticide, illegal baby-brokering....) The adoption system is already strained, we are told. A quantum increase in unwanted children would strain it further... I listened to several young people who were participating in the latest pro-life march in Washington on NPR. All wanted Roe V.Wade overturned. None seemed to have any notion of the implications... This is an excellent question because I really do not think that they have figured it out either. > I have talked to some pro-life people who want a total ban on abortions. > I have talked to other pro-life people who support abortions only in the case of rape, incest, or due to serious health issues for the mother. > I have talked to other pro-life people who want the individual States to decide just what is permissible regarding abortions (note: this is usually the stance give by most pro-life politicians as well). So sorry! But since the pro-life people do not know what they want, then I cannot tell you what they want either.
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

25th January 2012, 12:57 PM	#21
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 18,108	Originally Posted by Caper What if you believe life doesn't start until 50? I'd ask to see the heart/lung machine they used to keep the braindead body viable for fifty years. When "life" begins is not a point of contention. When it becomes a "person" with all the rights of a sentient being is in contention.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

25th January 2012, 01:32 PM	#22
kbm99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 271	Originally Posted by Bikewer I have heard it said that the pro-life movement is actually an anti-sex movement. That sex is for making babies, period. "Unwanted" children are the wages of sin, as it were. This strikes me as exactly correct. While many mainstream anti-choice voters might well be contented with the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the hardcore movement types would then progress to call for the abolition of contraception. This is certainly Rick Santorum's aim - not only the end of abortion, but the end of contraception and non-procreative sex.
kbm99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 271

25th January 2012, 01:42 PM	#23
kbm99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 271	Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am On the first point I'd have to say that when life starts is a purely subjective opinion. There is a logic to the position that life starts as soon as the first cells split if for no other reason that at that point, if left alone, it will become a human being. Actually, at that point, it hasn't even implanted in the uterine wall yet, and its fate is very much uncertain. What is certain is that, if "left alone" it certainly will not become a human being, as it absolutely requires the mother's body as a host for the next nine months. Or perhaps less in the event of medical intervention, but again that hardly qualifies as being "left alone."
kbm99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 271

25th January 2012, 01:45 PM	#24
cwalner Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Deepest Darkest Indiana Posts: 5,757	Originally Posted by kbm99 This strikes me as exactly correct. While many mainstream anti-choice voters might well be contented with the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the hardcore movement types would then progress to call for the abolition of contraception. This is certainly Rick Santorum's aim - not only the end of abortion, but the end of contraception and non-procreative sex. They can pry my condom from my cold dead ... maybe I should phrase that differently.
	__________________ Vecini - Inconceivable! Inigo - You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

25th January 2012, 02:34 PM	#25
Zelenius Muse Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: East coast, U.S Posts: 663	It's funny, I was thinking of asking the same question on this forum. What I am wondering is if the religious fanatics overturn Roe V Wade, would they want women who have illegal abortions to be charged with murder, along with the abortionist? I'm sure at least a few of them would. Another thing I'll never understand are the anti-abortion fanatics who are also against all contraception, although I have met a few right-wing Christians who are anti-abortion but are very much in favor of birth control(these more reasonable pro-lifers are pretty rare). If it wasn't for contraception, there would be far more abortions every year. But so few of them understand this. I don't think pro-lifers understand much of anything to be honest. Even the concept of "the lesser of two evils" seems completely alien to most of them, since even if I could accept that abortion is evil, using contraception would be a far lesser evil. And more importantly, something that can be used to prevent the far greater evil. The "end point" for them is really just some Christian Totalitarian Theocracy in the U.S, "returning" this country to something it never was and was never meant to be.
	Last edited by Zelenius; 25th January 2012 at 02:39 PM.

25th January 2012, 02:41 PM	#26
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,164	Originally Posted by kbm99 Actually, at that point, it hasn't even implanted in the uterine wall yet, and its fate is very much uncertain. What is certain is that, if "left alone" it certainly will not become a human being, as it absolutely requires the mother's body as a host for the next nine months. Or perhaps less in the event of medical intervention, but again that hardly qualifies as being "left alone." Fair enough on the first point, I didn't say the logic was unassailable but only that there was a certain logic to it. I disagree on your second point though. The obvious meaning of "left alone" in the context of the OP clearly means not having an abortion (left alone) as opposed to having an abortion (not being left alone). That I even have to point this out does not bolster your position but does make it look a bit pedantic in nature.
	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar.

25th January 2012, 02:50 PM	#27
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,617	Stephen Jay Gould had a nice answer to the question, "when does life begin?. "About 3.5 billion years ago."

25th January 2012, 03:06 PM	#28
cambion Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 393	I believe the "end point" of the pro-life movement is simply to have abortion outlawed because they believe it's murder. I don't think there's (broadly speaking, I'm sure there are exceptions) a very nuanced argument addressing the fact that abortions may actually INCREASE if it were outlawed. My guess is that they would deny that fact if confronted with it, and blame the women having the "back alley" abortions if they were somehow forced to face the reality of the situation. The fact that it it would no longer be legally legitimate seems to be morally acceptable to them, regardless of whether or not it would actually decrease abortions. There's nothing remotely Utilitarian about their stance.
cambion Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 393	__________________ I hate those guys. Ever since their 9-11 conspiracy debunk show which didn't debunk anything I never liked them again. Tried to make CT'S out to be utter quacks. Last edited by cambion; 25th January 2012 at 03:07 PM.

25th January 2012, 03:51 PM	#29
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,489	It's important to remember how the abortion issue is used by the right. Abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, and a dozen other inflammatory distractions are the issues with which the Republican party is capable of mobilizing millions of voters. It should be quite plain to the most casual observer what the GOP actually wants simply by looking at what they actually accomplish, and it has nothing to do with pro-life. What they actually want is further deregulation and further concentration of wealth and power into a smaller and smaller segment of society. They spend their time in Washington DC doing the work they deem most important. They have little or no intention of actually overturning Roe v. Wade, and would shrink from the opportunity should it ever present itself. No, the issue is too valuable to them as a tool with which to win votes. Of course, the churches are completely complicit in this as well. They've been steering their congregations to the ballot box for decades now. The time spent rehashing the same tired arguments about abortion is time spent NOT actually looking at issues of real importance. It also prevents the left from mounting any sort of defense of civil liberties, worker protections, and social safety nets. They have to constantly devote time to the pointless debate over abortion.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't. Last edited by joesixpack; 25th January 2012 at 03:52 PM.

25th January 2012, 04:34 PM	#30
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by joesixpack It's important to remember how the abortion issue is used by the right. Abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, and a dozen other inflammatory distractions are the issues with which the Republican party is capable of mobilizing millions of voters. It should be quite plain to the most casual observer what the GOP actually wants simply by looking at what they actually accomplish, and it has nothing to do with pro-life. What they actually want is further deregulation and further concentration of wealth and power into a smaller and smaller segment of society. They spend their time in Washington DC doing the work they deem most important. They have little or no intention of actually overturning Roe v. Wade, and would shrink from the opportunity should it ever present itself. No, the issue is too valuable to them as a tool with which to win votes. Of course, the churches are completely complicit in this as well. They've been steering their congregations to the ballot box for decades now. The time spent rehashing the same tired arguments about abortion is time spent NOT actually looking at issues of real importance. It also prevents the left from mounting any sort of defense of civil liberties, worker protections, and social safety nets. They have to constantly devote time to the pointless debate over abortion. I don't find it pointless at all. At what point human life deserves protection is a serious issue for me. I do agree with most of your post though.
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

25th January 2012, 04:36 PM	#31
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by Travis When "life" begins is not a point of contention. When it becomes a "person" with all the rights of a sentient being is in contention. Agreed.
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

25th January 2012, 04:43 PM	#32
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023	Originally Posted by Zelenius Another thing I'll never understand are the anti-abortion fanatics who are also against all contraception, although I have met a few right-wing Christians who are anti-abortion but are very much in favor of birth control(these more reasonable pro-lifers are pretty rare). If it wasn't for contraception, there would be far more abortions every year. . It's really not hard to understand at all. They believe both are wrong. It's like asking them if an abuser should use a gun or a knife. They believe both are wrong, though knifes would surely cause less murders...... It in no way means we should promote knifes. I disagree with their thinking. I'm all for birth control. And agree it would be better for them to embrace birth control if they want to reduce abortions. But I certianly have no problem understanding theior argument.
Caper Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,023

25th January 2012, 04:53 PM	#33
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	I'm uncompromisingly anti-abortion. What's my end game? To put society in a position where the rights of the unborn are recognized and abortions are viewed the same as any other infanticide. I want Roe and Doe overturned or eviscerated and the question of punishment for this act of violence left generally to state criminal law, just as we do for every other act of personal violence. And if it's true that, in some States criminalizing abortion does not work to prevent abortion, I would not want them to outlaw it. The same is true of other deprivations of human rights, by the way; if you can prove that laws against spousal abuse, rape, or manslaughter actually increase the rate of these activities, we should get rid of the laws. Laws need to be about crime prevention by deterrence, not morality. Can any of you making the utilitarian argument with respect from abortion also confirm that you would agree with legalizing these other acts of violence under the same circumstances? I also support contraception.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Last edited by AvalonXQ; 25th January 2012 at 04:56 PM.

25th January 2012, 04:56 PM	#34
Zelenius Muse Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: East coast, U.S Posts: 663	Originally Posted by Caper It's really not hard to understand at all. They believe both are wrong. It's like asking them if an abuser should use a gun or a knife. They believe both are wrong, though knifes would surely cause less murders...... It in no way means we should promote knifes. I disagree with their thinking. I'm all for birth control. And agree it would be better for them to embrace birth control if they want to reduce abortions. But I certianly have no problem understanding theior argument. I can "understand" their position to the extent that I understand it is based on religious dogma. Religious dogmas aren't meant to be understood by both believers and non-believers. On the other hand, these same Christians who are very dogmatic about birth control and abortion are very undogmatic when it comes to other issues, even when they are based on the Bible or 10 commandments, but that's a whole other issue.

25th January 2012, 04:58 PM	#35
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Zelenius I can "understand" their position to the extent that I understand it is based on religious dogma. I don't agree. Although this is true for some anti-abortion advocates, many base their opposition on a simple belief that human rights, particularly the right to life, extend to the unborn.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853