Limits on Abortion

Well, this is a false statement. These situations are not outlandish; these are the very real realities that emerge in societies that enact NJ's policies, as proven by Schraf's information. It's amazing to me how you pro-lifers fall all over yourselves to prove how it's not about "saving innocents", it's about shaming sluts. Thanks for being one more proof that I've been right all along.Iano, are you prepared to address the questions I've posed to NJ and Petro? For your perusal:

quote:

---

I wonder if you can address the contradictions that lie at the heart of the pro-life movement, then. Why is it that, despite claiming to oppose abortion, they promote policies that increase abortions and oppose policies that reduce the number of abortions?

---

I suspect this is going to be just another one of the myriad questions I've asked you, Iano, that you haven't been able to answer. What are we, going on nearly two years of such questions with you?

Ana, are you prepared to answer the questions NJ and Petro weren't able to? To remind you:

quote:

---

I wonder if you can address the contradictions that lie at the heart of the pro-life movement, then. Why is it that, despite claiming to oppose abortion, they promote policies that increase abortions and oppose policies that reduce the number of abortions?

---

The busybody moralizing from the pro-life movement would appear a lot less hollow and false if they showed the slightest interest in actually reducing abortions. Or even curing diseases! When was the last time you heard of a pro-life organization promoting (for instance) expanded access to pre-natal care for low-income women?Why is it that the only thing pro-lifers are interested in is forcing women to give birth? That was the contradiction that drove me out of the pro-life camp (that, and the development of sense on my part), and it's astounding to me that the rest of you seem completely blind to this contradiction.

Well, I've taken classes in human anatomy/development and biology, including genetics. Gray's Anatomy (the text, not the TV show) was bedtime reading when I was growing up. My parents explained the "birds and the bees" when I was about 6, using medical illustrations of the process. (For a time, pornography confused me because the only depictions of intercourse I was familiar with were sagital cross-sections.)I know what a fetus is. Since you claim to be such an expert in embryology, let's try a little test. You tell me which fetus is the human and which is not:Or, maybe, just possibly, the fact that you observed a pregnancy second-hand doesn't actually make you an expert in obstetrics. Just a thought?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I guess I'm not sure what you're confused about. It's well-known what policies reduce abortions and what policies don't. Promoting contraception "literacy" and avaliability, expanding avaliability of health care, and addressing other reasons unintended pregnancies occur is proven to reduce the occurance of abortion.Punishing abortions, making them illegal, reducing Federal funding for pre-natal care, and abstinence-only education has been proven not to prevent abortion.My question for you, though, is pretty simple. There's not a "pro-life" organization in this country that promotes the former policies; they promote, soley, the latter policies. If they claim to be opposed to abortion, why do they promote only policies that do not prevent abortion, and oppose the policies that would reduce abortions?How do you address the discrepancy? The question isn't why aren't they interested in some things that would reduce abortion; the question is - why aren't they interested in anything that reduces abortion?

Because you won't answer questions or address rebuttals, as usual. DNA isn't relevant here. And I'm not interested in addressing the same arguments that I've addressed in other threads. Again with the invisible mother! The fact that an infant no longer resides inside of another person's uterus is, apparently, irrelevant to you - because it's all but impossible for you to even remember that the uterus is located inside a human being. In your view it belongs to whatever fetus is inside of it. There's no such thing as "partial birth abortion." I can't speak to procedures that don't medically exist. No, I didn't. Sure. If I had been aborted, I wouldn't be here. Hell, I wouldn't even have noticed - there was nothing there to notice it.You seem to have some trouble with that concept. Apparently it's hard for you to imagine a time when you didn't even exist. It's no surprise to me, I guess - your opinion of yourself is apparently pretty high. I mean, why else would you think you're qualified to make decisions for all other women? Yes, exactly. Abortions for every woman who wants one. Since you've already said that "normal" women don't want abortions (which doesn't make any sense), and at the very least we agree that plenty of women are not going to abort pregnancies that they want, what the hell are we talking about? If plenty of women are going to choose not to have abortions, how is abortion a threat to our survival, as you implied it was?You're not making any sense because you're not responding to rebuttals, answering questions, or being consistent. However they choose to view it. We both agree that plenty of people are perfectly fine with the idea of getting pregnant - in fact they're trying to accomplish exactly that - and nobody's talking about forcing those people to have abortions, so what's the issue here? Aside from your relentless, nonsensical contrarianism? Unless they know it was unintended and unwanted. Who would be so rude as to "congratulate" someone under those circumstances? It's like congratulating someone for getting cancer.But I appreciate that you have problems with these sorts of interactions. Someone who can't conceive of a universe that existed before him, and will exist after him, is going to have a very hard time imagining a situation from anybody else's perspective. And obviously the feelings of women are a complete mystery to you, since you have such a hard time remembering that they even exist apart from their uteruses. How is that a correction? You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a promiscuous woman is the only one who can be called a "slut" or be made to feel ashamed about doing completely normal things.And again we see the inconsistency. First pregnancy is considered a universal blessing; now, you admit that even married couples have unwanted pregnancies. What's going on here besides a sophistic attempt to catch me in some kind of ridiculous "gotcha"? Contraception. Why does every national pro-life organization oppose contraception? Already addressed. We're going in circles because you repeat arguments without addressing rebuttals. My guess is, NJ, they already know. This. This is the sexism - whenever I'm talking about "women", you hear "babies." Women are invisible to you. You look right through them and all you see is the uterus with a fetus inside. That's why, every time, you change the subject to fetuses. When are you going to realize that it's women who are the subject of discussion, here? How on Earth would any of those things reduce pregnancy and abortion? Can't you see that the only thing those things do is produce political power?What more could you do? Anything! Anything you did that was actually for the reduction of abortion would be a start - and I'd be right there beside you, helping. I'm not any more in favor of abortions than you are - because any time there's an abortion, that means there was a fetus inside a woman that didn't want it there, and that should be prevented before it even happens.But pro-life organizations aren't interested in preventing that. They're not interested in preventing anything except the decline of their influence and their patronage from the GOP. How do you explain this blatant contradiction if the "pro-life" movement is really about what you say it's about? I've asked three of your peers, now, and they don't have an answer. Why don't you?

Well, of course you wouldn't - because it's not about reducing abortions for you, it's about punishing sluts.That's why you're more hung up on who's "responsibility" something is, rather than what can be done, practically, to reduce abortions. The cause of abortion is not sluttiness.

From your posts. When you tell me that abortion is about women behaving selfishly, and you're not interested in promoting contraception; that's ironclad proof that your opposition to abortion is to ensure that God's punishment for being slutty isn't interfered with, not in saving "unborn lives."Look, I can read, Ana. Your posts are very clear. When people talk about "selfish women", that's a not-so-secret code for "sluts." And when people talk about "personal responsibility", that's a not-so-secret code for "punishing the sluts."Don't forget that I was once pro-life, conservative, and Christian. I know the codes, Ana.

Refresh my memory, then. Where, then, did you voice your overwhelming support for expanded access to contraception and health care? Because it's my recollection that you dismissed those as only trivially connected to the abortion debate, hence the lack of interest in those issues among "pro-lifers."And it's also my recollection that you just framed the issue in terms of selfish women who need to take personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Is my memory in error? Or maybe you're the one who needs to be reminded?

So, then, I was correct. You voice the same contradictory apathy towards things like contraception that the nation's so-called "pro-life" organizations do. I informed you what the connection is - those policies demonstratively reduce the number of abortions.That they are policies often opposed by the nation's ostensibly anti-abortion organizations is the contradiction that I have asked you to address, with no response except a shrug.

Who said you were evil?And, what? You honestly can't figure out why national organizations that claim to oppose abortion are completely uninterested in promoting policies that reduce abortions?Really? You've never before in your life encountered a situation where an entity's actions were completely contradictory to their stated goals? You really have no idea what to think in such a situation, or what conclusions could possibly be reached?What a world of naivete you must inhabit.

What I think should be obvious, because I've told you and others in several posts, now. I guess you haven't been paying attention.Regardless - my views are already on the record. It's your answer to the question that I want. There's four of you on this thread who I've posed the question to - you, NJ, Petro, and Iano. Surely one out of four of you can answer a simple question about a position that you claim to support?

Really? Let's try another little test (that you'll be sure to ignore, doubtless. Still waiting for you to put your embryology degree to good use a few posts back, NJ.)You're using Ortho-Cyclen. You wake up one morning and realize you forgot to take your pill yesterday. What do you do? Is it necessary to use a "backup" means of contraception, or are you still protected from pregnancy?If you had to look up the answers to these questions, or your reply is simply the smug, ignorant moralizing that typeifies abstinence promoters, then that kind of shoots down your whole point that every human being is born with perfect knowledge of every contraceptive technology, now doesn't it?Honestly NJ I wonder if you even think about the things you say before you say them.

Man, you're just a hundred different kinds of wrong, aren't you? Emergency contraception is known not to have the effect of preventing implanation (according to the most recent scientific research.)It's amazing to me how you regularly style yourself as more informed that your opponents, who you are convinced are arguing from ignorance; yet, almost every post of yours contains factually inaccurate statements such as this one. It's actually the conservative judges who coddle rapists, I suspect - because they're unwilling to send a man to jail on the testimony of a woman they consider "loose" or "immoral." It's called RU486. Maybe you've heard of it? MVA and EVA are not surgical, either. How does that make any sense?Oh, wait, I forgot. See, from your perspective, it makes perfect sense that a man would be making the decision to have an abortion for a woman - because in your world, men always make decisions for women.It's amazing to me how you can't remember to conceal your sexism for even a single post, NJ. Interesting. When has that ever been true? LOL! You truly have no idea what you're talking about most of the time, do you?

If conservatives are so broken up about the prospect of becoming unintended fathers, why are they so resolute in blocking FDA approval of male birth control?

...yeah? And? How is that any different than usual?Conservatives don't know anything about conservatism. What else is new?